The Other Side


By mattpryor
August 12, 2010
Share

Like many people I can't help but notice how in the media these days Israeli "settlers" tend to be portrayed as troublemakers, bigots and the principle "obstacle to peace" (is anyone else sick and tired of hearing that phrase?) and was thinking only a month or so ago how refreshing it would be to see the human side of the settler story. To the BBC's credit they did touch on the subject a while ago with their article on the "hilltop youth" and this gave a slightly different, or at least human perspective.

And so, I was delighted yesterday to discover "The Other Side", a series of online video interviews with Jews living in [Judea & Samaria|West Bank|Cisjordan] (delete as appropriate!) and thought I'd share my finding with the JC community.

The website features four videos at present, and each of them is well worth watching, even if you disagree with their political views (I especially encourage people like ibrows, Ben Abuyah, etc to watch them!). Their stories are poignant and touching.

Linky here

All the best,
Matt

COMMENTS

mattpryor

Thu, 08/12/2010 - 14:49

Rate this:

0 points

PS if any media-types watch these videos, it would be great to see them made into a documentary and shown on the tele.

Well, we live in hope.


ibrows

Thu, 08/12/2010 - 17:08

Rate this:

0 points

perhaps it is because many settlers are fanatical religious extremists that believe they have the right to steal Palestinians homes in areas such as Sheikh Jarrah


Akiva

Thu, 08/12/2010 - 17:57

Rate this:

0 points

See what ibrows did there? He's calling Jews living in North Jerusalem "settlers"! Not just any Jews, but Jews who legally own land and houses in Shimon HaTzadik. Of course you can see his point. But since when do terror sympathisers care about the law?


ibrows

Thu, 08/12/2010 - 18:48

Rate this:

0 points

There are many settlers trying to take over Sheikh Jarrah, and they don't legally own the houses that they are evicting Palestinians from.


amber

Thu, 08/12/2010 - 20:09

Rate this:

0 points

Ibrows, are you saying the palestinians DO own these properties?

Careful now...


ibrows

Thu, 08/12/2010 - 20:36

Rate this:

0 points

Palestinian's have lived in Sheikh Jarrah since at least 1950, following an agreement with the Jordanian government that provided homes for these refugees after they were expelled from their homes during the Nakba of 1948.

In 1953, some Palestinians were evicted from west Jerusalem, and came to East Jerusalem, the Jordanian government built 28 houses for these refugees in Sheikh Jarrah, these are the homes that Jewish settlers are currently seeking to take over through various dubious legal mechanisms and forged ottoman title deeds.

In a 1982 legal case, the Council of Sephardic started taking legal action against Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah, the court then signed an agreement giving the Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah 'protective residency'. In 1989 the Council of Sephardic claimed it hadn't recieved any rent from the palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah (despite not claiming any) and subsequently called for their eviction.


DeborahMaccoby

Thu, 08/12/2010 - 20:45

Rate this:

0 points

Matt, that link doesn't work - or at least I couldn't find the videos on it; I googled them and found this link (starting with video number 4, which I found the most interesting):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AjrmefQaUU&hd=

I agree with ibrows that the political views of the settlers are indeed fanatical and really complete rubbish (it would take too long to analyse and refute them all here). But what is interesting and positive about these videos, especially video number 4, is when the settlers talk about their interaction with Palestinians on a human, one to one basis. Unlike the Zionist left, who believe in separation, these people want coexistence with Palestinians - the trouble is that they want a completely unequal and unjust coexistence. But these videos confirm my view that the only real answer is a binational state with both colletive/national and individual equality, with both peoples able to live in coexistence across the whole land. So there is something positive about these videos, and thanks for posting this.

Deborah


Akiva

Thu, 08/12/2010 - 20:49

Rate this:

0 points

How ibrows can be expected to be taken seriously when he fails at simple geography is beyond me.

Hint: Shimon HaTzadik (Sheikh Jarrah) is on Mount Scopus in NORTH Jerusalem.

It is historical fact that the areas of Shimon Hazadik and Nahalat Shimon were Jewish owned during the Ottoman empire. Trying to argue that these properties are legally arab owned is like trying to argue water isn't wet.


ibrows

Thu, 08/12/2010 - 20:58

Rate this:

0 points

of the 28 houses in contention, like i say, Jordan made agreement to resettle these Palestinian refugees here after they were evicted from West Jerusalem. Jordan you may remember controlled the West Bank and East Jerusalem until 1967.

Other Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah have title deeds going back to the Ottoman era. Its only these 28 houses that the Jewish settlers seem intent of illegally taking over


ibrows

Thu, 08/12/2010 - 21:08

Rate this:

0 points

The claim that these properties were 'once owned by Jews', a long time ago does not give them the right to expel the current inhabitants.

These Jewish claims to this land are ridiculous, they are based on claims that God gave Jews this land.

can Roman's also march into England and 'claim rights to the land' from centuries ago?

Or will Israel accept all Palestinian claims to the land, after all they were forcibly removed from during the Nakba?


amber

Thu, 08/12/2010 - 22:33

Rate this:

0 points

Maccoby, if you want to see unequal co-existence, try being a Kurd in Syria or Turkey - your newfound friends. as for the Jews, there is no co-existence in most of the Arab world - they were ethnically cleansed.


amber

Thu, 08/12/2010 - 22:35

Rate this:

0 points

ibrows, if someone doesn't own a property, what gives them the right to live in it for free for perpetuity? Is this the case in the UK? I suppose Jews who lost their homes in Poland only to have people steal them and move into them also forfeit any rights in your book?


amber

Thu, 08/12/2010 - 22:39

Rate this:

0 points

Don't forget ibrows that the Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria was illegal - so Jordan had no rights to bestow stolen properties to anyone - or is it only the Israelis who act "illegally"?


mattpryor

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 09:30

Rate this:

0 points

Apologies, the link should have been:

www.theothersideideo.com

As I said, more interesting from a human perspective than a political one. Deborah thank you for acknowledging that.

ibrows congratulations on being able to use Google.


ibrows

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 09:32

Rate this:

0 points

Jordan resettled these Palestinians here after they were forced from their homes during the Nakba of 1948, in which 700,000 Palestinians were evicted and fled their homes. Perhaps if Israel had not evicted them originally from their homes, and barred them from returning after the war this indeed would not have happened.

Jews were rightly given a homeland after the Holocaust, but this does not give them the right to expel Palestinians from their homes. These Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah were refugees that sought the same protection that the Jews did during the Holocaust, after being expelled, but instead Israel seeks to displace them and evict them a second time


mattpryor

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 09:57

Rate this:

0 points

Perhaps a politically correct summary of events in 1947/1948 (as opposed to ibot's one-sided, egregious and insulting version of history) might be:

"Over 1.5 million people, half of whom were Jewish, were displaced as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israel War"

Would anyone care to quibble over that sentence?

Interestingly over 1.5 million people have been driven out of Kyrgyzstan only this year. It's a shame ibot's bleeding-heart humanity doesn't extend to them.


ibrows

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 10:01

Rate this:

0 points

mattpryor

I watched a couple of your video links, they offer a very selective and constructed view of settlements.

The Shiloh one was interesting the lady states: 'any time there is talk of a peace deal our safety is compromised'. Like i have said previously many Zionists don't want a peace deal with the Palestinians as they are happy continuing the occupation, these settlers have significant army protection and are shielded from seeing the realities of the occupation as they have very few interactions with Palestinians. So why would they want to end the occupation.

This video also touched on the point that the Israeli government encouraged settlers into the occupied territories originally (and indeed has spent millions on financing and funding the settlers and offering low rate loan deals). Many secular settlers were encouraged to relocate to the occupied territories due to financial considerations.

The Bayit Ehad ("One Home") project, is trying to convince the Israeli government to give financial assistance to settlers that wish to return to Israel. The One Home project claims that almost half the 80,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank would be prepared to return to Israel if the Israeli government compensated them.


ibrows

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 10:07

Rate this:

-1 points

mattpryor

So does the fact that more people were displaced somewhere else, at a different point in history invalidate the Nakba, is that what your saying? Don't you think 700,000 Palestinians being evicted is worthy of a mention.

As i repeatedly stress on these pages, the diversion tactic of finding something worse, happening somewhere else, does not absolve Israel of responsiblity for the Nakba, nor does it change the facts of what ocurred at Deir Yassin, like i posted yesterday, Benny Morris confirms this massacre took place and that it led to many other villages fleeing in fear, who were later prevented from returning, all this in Morris, please check the references i gave


ibrows

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 10:23

Rate this:

0 points

Matt

plus to give the otherside, of the 'otherside' there are however many fanatical settlers like 'women in Green', women like Nadia Matar who advocate 'the transfer of all Arabs' as the only solution. This is simply a settler group advocating mass explusion and ethnic cleansing.

fanatical, settlers, never.


mattpryor

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 10:56

Rate this:

0 points

"So does the fact that more people were displaced somewhere else, at a different point in history invalidate the Nakba, is that what your saying? Don't you think 700,000 Palestinians being evicted is worthy of a mention."

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Current real, ongoing humanitarian crises are far more important and worthy of attention than the perceived grievances of people whose parents or grandparents were displaced 60 years ago.

What part of that statement do you disagree with?


mattpryor

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 11:00

Rate this:

0 points

As for Nadia Matar, I have no idea who she is, and to be honest I'm not very interested. If you have a problem with her views why don't you take the matter up with her, not me?


ibrows

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 11:54

Rate this:

0 points

Matt

So using your logic, the Holocaust is also 'not worthy of a mention' either, is that what your saying?


mattpryor

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 12:12

Rate this:

0 points

That is a subject which should be treated with the dignity and respect, and the fact that you throw that word around to score points in your petty, mean-spirited little arguments is pathetic and shameful and reveals a great deal about you.


amber

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 12:23

Rate this:

1 point

ibrows, you completely lack any perspective, but then most obsessive Israel haters do. Whilst you may find a fringe of Israeli society which advocates a transfer of Arabs, (and they are indeed fringe), you will find official bodies of the Palestinians who advocate the extermination of every Jew on earth. Such a body governs Gaza.

Not quite the same, ar ethey?


amber

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 12:24

Rate this:

0 points

ibrows, 700,000 Arabs were not eveiced. That is an outright lie.

On the other hand, 900,000 Jews from Arab lands were.


ibrows

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 12:25

Rate this:

0 points

You said 'Current real, ongoing humanitarian crises are far more important and worthy of attention than the perceived grievances of people whose parents or grandparents were displaced 60 years ago'

I do treat the Holocaust with respect, but i am shocked that you can say the Nakba 'is not worthy of mention' that is totally disrespectful to those killed and evicted from their homes, your the shameful one, who refuses to acknowledge the uncomfortable truth, that Benny Morris has documented, the expulsion and eviction of 700,000 Palestinians by Israel.


ibrows

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 12:30

Rate this:

0 points

amber

check my references from Benny Morris, i cited them here yesterday


Macairt

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 15:05

Rate this:

1 point

If Christians are going to hold Jews to Jewish standards, I think it only fair that Jews may hold Christians to Christian standards. Or indeed Muslims to Islamic ones.

e.g. justice and honesty:

if Christians think Palestinian Christian dispossession entails the right to return and restoration, then they also ought to confer that right historically to Jews.

Likewise, if they think Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims entitled to national self-determination in the land, they ought also to confer that right on Jews. They also ought to acknowledge and confront the fact that, for nearly 2000 years, Christians have thought dispossession and exile a perfectly just and entirely merited fate for Jews, as a punishment for their alleged rejection of Jesus and the prophets.

Did this teach Palestinian Christians any Christian sympathy for the lot of the Jews as a people dispossessed, even from most of the lands of exile?

Hardly.

They may not have actively endorsed the violent expulsionist or eliminationist threats of their Palestinian Arab Muslim nationalist brethren (though some did), but they remained, to all intents and purposes, completely silent and complicit in the face of it.

I am pretty familiar with the Anglican and Methodist communions' critiques of Israel and Zionism. As well as their common discourse with Palestinian Arab Christian liberation theologians of sundry denominations. I can tell you here and now such self-examination is very rare indeed.

The tendency is almost always to extract the mote from Jewish eyes, rather than the beam from Christian ones.

I doubt Deborah Maccoby's father, Hyam would have agreed much with her. He would have said that the fact that Jews have yearned for a restoration to the land for nigh on 2000 years is an aspiration to national justice and self-determination every bit as legitimate as that of Palestinian Christians and Muslims, a right the latter sought to deny to Jews historically, excluding, practising apartheid against them for centuries, trying to keep them to a tiny minority, then threatening to further expel or eliminate them.

Frankly I see no such Christian moral criteria applied to Palestinian Christian attitudes and treatment of Jews, Palestinian or other, over the centuries, or during the course of the 20th.

The Methodist report, for instance, reads like a recasting of the crucifixion narrative, that of the Palestinian Arab Christian and Muslim national-victim Christ by the alien Zionist Jews i.e. a recasting of the Christian story in national or nationalist form.

The odd thing is that Hyam Maccoby would have spotted this immediately for what it was.


amber

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 15:20

Rate this:

1 point

ibrows, 700,000 were not evicted. It is a lie.


amber

Fri, 08/13/2010 - 15:22

Rate this:

1 point

ibrows, further to my point, what is yours? What is the endgame here - are you trying to say israel was founded in "original sin", and therefore has no right to exist and should be annihilated forthwith?

What's your big point?


jose (not verified)

Sat, 08/14/2010 - 14:29

Rate this:

0 points

“The Arab states succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the states of the world did so, and this is regrettable. The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny, but instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe.”
-- Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), from the official journal of the PLO, Falastin el-Thawra (“What We Have Learned and What We Should Do”), Beirut, March 1976.

Not only 700000 Arabs were not 'evicted' from their homes but their leaders know perfectly that it was not so.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS