26 dec 2013
Responding to damage, the occupation claims 'price tag' victims at fault for failing to duly protect their land.
The Israeli occupation is claiming that Palestinians who were the recent target of a “price tag” attack are to blame for their misfortune - because they failed to adequately protect their plot of land.
This position arises from the occupation’s response to a damages filed by the owners of an olive grove situated in Area C in the occupied West Bank, under full Israeli military and civilian control.
The IOF, for its part, is refusing to install lighting around the olive grove to protect it from future vandalism, arguing that a complaint for damages has already been filed. The grove, which belongs to the Amour family, lies adjacent to highway 317 in the southern Hebron hills, across from A-Tawani village, the illegal settlement of Maon and the outpost Havat Maon. This case can well serve as a litmus test for the seriousness of declarations made by civilian and military authorities, according to which they will take action against price tag vigilantes.
In 2006, unknown persons cut down all 120 trees in the grove. In 2011, part of a surrounding fence was destroyed and a tree was felled. On the night of May 9 of this year, half of the trees belonging to the Amour family were chopped down, and the act was accompanied by a message sprayed in Hebrew letters, saying that “price tag is fed up with thieves – mutual responsibility” and “regards from Eviatar”. The perpetrators used hand saws to achieve their mission.
After each of the incidents, the Amour family filed a complaint with the police, asking for protection against future vandalism.
Ten days after the third incident, attorney Itai Mack, representing the family, appealed to occupation Brig. Gen. Moti Almoz, who was then head of the Civil Administration in the territories, asking him to specify what actions he would undertake to prevent further acts of vandalism. Mack was relying on a 2006 decision by the Israeli High Court of Justice which ruled that the authorities must “devote manpower for the protection of Palestinian property, must open an immediate inquiry when reports of harassment are received, and send out patrols by security forces to locate such activities.”
Almoz’s bureau responded by saying that the person to handle such matters was Lt. Ronnie Rivlin, the officer in charge of public complaints at the IOF’s Central Command. However, two letters to Lt. Rivlin, sent on May 23 and June 5 by attorney Mack, went unanswered.
On June 13 Mack filed a comlaint for damages against the occupation state, amounting to 65,840 shekels ($18,709) since, according to him, “the state’s incompetence, negligence and lack of serious attention to the complaints only encouraged extremist Israelis to continue their actions, giving them a sense of immunity vis-à-vis law enforcement authorities.” Mack mentioned in his petition that the state routinely safeguards the property of colonial settlers and funds security measures for them, such as fences and surveillance cameras.
The occupation state’s response to the petition was brought on October 20 by attorney Moshe Vilinger. It says that “the state’s contention is that the bulk of the blame lies with the plaintiff, who at the very least was a main contributor to the damage. The state claims that the plaintiff did not take sufficient measures to prevent the incident. For example, the plaintiff claims that had the defendant had set up lighting, the incident would have been avoided. However, he decided to wait it out, relying on security forces and the authorities to undertake an action which he could have resorted to himself.” The attorney also argued that the vandals were not emissaries of the state, which did not sanction or approve their actions.
In the meantime, the officer in charge of public complaints responded to Mack on October 3, and upon her suggestion, on October 28 representatives of the occupied West Bank illegal colonial settlements counsel and officers of the occupation Civil Administration toured the grove in order to investigate methods of protecting it. A month later, unknown persons vandalized an adjacent grove belonging to another family.
In response to a query from Haaretz regarding the setting up of lighting around the grove, the occupation military spokesman said this week that “the family’s request was carefully addressed, including tours to the area. The family chose to turn to the courts before a decision was reached by the IOF. The issue is now being handled by the legal system, and the family will be notified in the customary manner when a decision is reached.”
The Israeli occupation is claiming that Palestinians who were the recent target of a “price tag” attack are to blame for their misfortune - because they failed to adequately protect their plot of land.
This position arises from the occupation’s response to a damages filed by the owners of an olive grove situated in Area C in the occupied West Bank, under full Israeli military and civilian control.
The IOF, for its part, is refusing to install lighting around the olive grove to protect it from future vandalism, arguing that a complaint for damages has already been filed. The grove, which belongs to the Amour family, lies adjacent to highway 317 in the southern Hebron hills, across from A-Tawani village, the illegal settlement of Maon and the outpost Havat Maon. This case can well serve as a litmus test for the seriousness of declarations made by civilian and military authorities, according to which they will take action against price tag vigilantes.
In 2006, unknown persons cut down all 120 trees in the grove. In 2011, part of a surrounding fence was destroyed and a tree was felled. On the night of May 9 of this year, half of the trees belonging to the Amour family were chopped down, and the act was accompanied by a message sprayed in Hebrew letters, saying that “price tag is fed up with thieves – mutual responsibility” and “regards from Eviatar”. The perpetrators used hand saws to achieve their mission.
After each of the incidents, the Amour family filed a complaint with the police, asking for protection against future vandalism.
Ten days after the third incident, attorney Itai Mack, representing the family, appealed to occupation Brig. Gen. Moti Almoz, who was then head of the Civil Administration in the territories, asking him to specify what actions he would undertake to prevent further acts of vandalism. Mack was relying on a 2006 decision by the Israeli High Court of Justice which ruled that the authorities must “devote manpower for the protection of Palestinian property, must open an immediate inquiry when reports of harassment are received, and send out patrols by security forces to locate such activities.”
Almoz’s bureau responded by saying that the person to handle such matters was Lt. Ronnie Rivlin, the officer in charge of public complaints at the IOF’s Central Command. However, two letters to Lt. Rivlin, sent on May 23 and June 5 by attorney Mack, went unanswered.
On June 13 Mack filed a comlaint for damages against the occupation state, amounting to 65,840 shekels ($18,709) since, according to him, “the state’s incompetence, negligence and lack of serious attention to the complaints only encouraged extremist Israelis to continue their actions, giving them a sense of immunity vis-à-vis law enforcement authorities.” Mack mentioned in his petition that the state routinely safeguards the property of colonial settlers and funds security measures for them, such as fences and surveillance cameras.
The occupation state’s response to the petition was brought on October 20 by attorney Moshe Vilinger. It says that “the state’s contention is that the bulk of the blame lies with the plaintiff, who at the very least was a main contributor to the damage. The state claims that the plaintiff did not take sufficient measures to prevent the incident. For example, the plaintiff claims that had the defendant had set up lighting, the incident would have been avoided. However, he decided to wait it out, relying on security forces and the authorities to undertake an action which he could have resorted to himself.” The attorney also argued that the vandals were not emissaries of the state, which did not sanction or approve their actions.
In the meantime, the officer in charge of public complaints responded to Mack on October 3, and upon her suggestion, on October 28 representatives of the occupied West Bank illegal colonial settlements counsel and officers of the occupation Civil Administration toured the grove in order to investigate methods of protecting it. A month later, unknown persons vandalized an adjacent grove belonging to another family.
In response to a query from Haaretz regarding the setting up of lighting around the grove, the occupation military spokesman said this week that “the family’s request was carefully addressed, including tours to the area. The family chose to turn to the courts before a decision was reached by the IOF. The issue is now being handled by the legal system, and the family will be notified in the customary manner when a decision is reached.”
23 dec 2013
Israeli Supreme Court of Justice panel asked Palestinians farmers from the West Bank village of Yatta to withdraw a petition against Israeli settlers who siezed their lands, Haaretz reported. The Israel Prosecutor's Office admitted that the Palestinians proved their legal attachment to the land and advised them to pursue the matter by civil legal action. He explained that the Supreme Court panel's request that they withdraw the petition indicates that it agrees.
Incidents of settlers seizing control of Palestinian land are increased in the recent years.
Three Israeli judges considered on last Wednesday the petition of the Hushiya family of Yatta. The petition concerns 300 dunoms between the illegal settlement of Susya and the unauthorized outpost of Mitzpe Yair, and another 900 dunams of pasture. The petition is that the settlers launched violent attacks on family members , preventing them from getting to their agricultural land and using the pasture of the their herds. The petitioners demanded that the" authorities " guarantee their freedom of movement and evacuate the settlers.
Israeli Attorney Amir Fisher, who represented the Susya settlement argued on their behalf that the lot was purchased in 1991 by Yair Har Sinai , but the attorney did not present any documents to back this claim.
Incidents of settlers seizing control of Palestinian land are increased in the recent years.
Three Israeli judges considered on last Wednesday the petition of the Hushiya family of Yatta. The petition concerns 300 dunoms between the illegal settlement of Susya and the unauthorized outpost of Mitzpe Yair, and another 900 dunams of pasture. The petition is that the settlers launched violent attacks on family members , preventing them from getting to their agricultural land and using the pasture of the their herds. The petitioners demanded that the" authorities " guarantee their freedom of movement and evacuate the settlers.
Israeli Attorney Amir Fisher, who represented the Susya settlement argued on their behalf that the lot was purchased in 1991 by Yair Har Sinai , but the attorney did not present any documents to back this claim.
11 dec 2013
|
|
Mustafa Tamimi
Nothing better symbolizes Israel's rejection of the universality of the Declaration of Human Rights than the closure of its investigation into the death of Mustafa Tamimi. Sixty-five years ago, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. International Human Rights Day, which takes place Tuesday, symbolizes the hope reflected in that moment, following the end of World War II, and the belief that if human rights could be rescued from the limitations of the nation-state and given a universal definition under which every person is deserving of protection, this would ensure a better world. |
The universal declaration also sought to break out of the framework of civil rights; it included the idea of just and adequate living conditions, in the form of social rights.
Sixty-five years later, many of the promises embodied in this declaration have not been kept. Social rights are fighting for their life against a neoliberal ideology that seeks to reduce and privatize social spending, while disparities in access to health, education and housing are steadily growing.
The declaration's other promise, the one relating to the universality of human rights, has also not been kept. And it seems that nothing better symbolizes Israel's rejection of the declaration's universality than the closure, on the eve of Human Rights Day, of its investigation into the death of Mustafa Tamimi.
Tamimi is one of at least 18 Palestinians, including eight minors, who have been killed by [Israeli Occupation Forces]fire during demonstrations in the territories, mainly as part of the fight against the separation barrier, since 2004. They include Bassem Abu Rahmeh, whose story was told in the documentary "5 Broken Cameras." Abu Rahmeh was shot even though he wasn't endangering anyone; the investigation into his death was closed in September without anyone being held accountable.
Demonstrators who were killed in the context of the Palestinians' popular struggle are only part of the story. More broadly, Palestinians are routinely killed by [IOF] gunfire. Just this weekend, a 15-year-old boy, Wajih al-Ramahi, was killed in the Jalazun refugee camp near Ramallah. Our unfortunate experience teaches us that no one will be held responsible for this death, either, and that in another few years, after an excessively long investigation, we will be informed that he, too, was killed in accordance with the rules.
But perhaps this failure to bring anyone to trial is a more accurate representation of reality than an Israeli indictment would have been. Bringing to trial a soldier who kills a Palestinian might create the impression that doing so is an exception rather than the rule.
Refraining from indicting soldiers who kill Palestinian civilians – whether they are teens like al-Ramahi, or demonstrators protesting the theft of land like Tamimi – is no less significant a statement than indicting them would be. It's a statement exclaiming that disregard for Palestinian lives is a key characteristic of the occupation, that the problem doesn't lie with any one particular shooting but with a norm of disregard for human life that stems from the very fact of an occupation army having control over a civilian population. It's a statement exclaiming that the so-called order the [IOF]seeks to impose in the territories is illegitimate, that the violence with which this order is achieved is the norm, and that the occupation is characterized by a combination of military violence and violence perpetrated by private citizens, like the settlers who take over Palestinian land. It is the army's control that enables and legitimizes all this.
In Israel, Human Rights Day should become a day to mourn the lack of respect for human rights.
This article was originally posted on Haaretz.
Sixty-five years later, many of the promises embodied in this declaration have not been kept. Social rights are fighting for their life against a neoliberal ideology that seeks to reduce and privatize social spending, while disparities in access to health, education and housing are steadily growing.
The declaration's other promise, the one relating to the universality of human rights, has also not been kept. And it seems that nothing better symbolizes Israel's rejection of the declaration's universality than the closure, on the eve of Human Rights Day, of its investigation into the death of Mustafa Tamimi.
Tamimi is one of at least 18 Palestinians, including eight minors, who have been killed by [Israeli Occupation Forces]fire during demonstrations in the territories, mainly as part of the fight against the separation barrier, since 2004. They include Bassem Abu Rahmeh, whose story was told in the documentary "5 Broken Cameras." Abu Rahmeh was shot even though he wasn't endangering anyone; the investigation into his death was closed in September without anyone being held accountable.
Demonstrators who were killed in the context of the Palestinians' popular struggle are only part of the story. More broadly, Palestinians are routinely killed by [IOF] gunfire. Just this weekend, a 15-year-old boy, Wajih al-Ramahi, was killed in the Jalazun refugee camp near Ramallah. Our unfortunate experience teaches us that no one will be held responsible for this death, either, and that in another few years, after an excessively long investigation, we will be informed that he, too, was killed in accordance with the rules.
But perhaps this failure to bring anyone to trial is a more accurate representation of reality than an Israeli indictment would have been. Bringing to trial a soldier who kills a Palestinian might create the impression that doing so is an exception rather than the rule.
Refraining from indicting soldiers who kill Palestinian civilians – whether they are teens like al-Ramahi, or demonstrators protesting the theft of land like Tamimi – is no less significant a statement than indicting them would be. It's a statement exclaiming that disregard for Palestinian lives is a key characteristic of the occupation, that the problem doesn't lie with any one particular shooting but with a norm of disregard for human life that stems from the very fact of an occupation army having control over a civilian population. It's a statement exclaiming that the so-called order the [IOF]seeks to impose in the territories is illegitimate, that the violence with which this order is achieved is the norm, and that the occupation is characterized by a combination of military violence and violence perpetrated by private citizens, like the settlers who take over Palestinian land. It is the army's control that enables and legitimizes all this.
In Israel, Human Rights Day should become a day to mourn the lack of respect for human rights.
This article was originally posted on Haaretz.
