BEQAA, WEST BANK, 19 February (IRIN) - A small, overcrowded Palestinian village in the southern West Bank, under threat from Israeli-conducted house demolitions and land confiscations, is rapidly becoming poorer.
"Every house here has one child at least who left because we can't build new homes. Some went to Hebron, but others left for Amman [Jordan] and places abroad" said Ghassan, a young man from Beqaa village, who is a refugee registered with the UN.
Bilal Jaber, who recently received papers saying his house was illegal, is worried it will be destroyed.
"I saved money when I worked as a laborer to build my home," the now unemployed man said. "If the Israelis destroy it, I can't rebuild."
He said he would probably have to move to the old city of Hebron, where the Palestinian Authority provides free housing in an attempt to stop Israeli settlement expansion, though living conditions there are tough.
Beqaa, outside Hebron, was founded in 1973 by Palestinians, including refugees from the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
Most left the city as it became overcrowded, but the new village is now also overloaded, since there are only about 55 homes for over 1,800 people. Around 20 other homes have been demolished in the last 12 years by the Israeli authorities, according to residents and the Christian Peacemaker Teams, a non-governmental organization (NGO) [w]orking in the area.
Furthermore, three water cisterns have been destroyed, and in late 2007 a demolition order was issued against a fourth well. The village also continues to lose farmland.
"My family has lost 20-25 dunams [20-25 square kilometers] of land in recent years, because of the settlements," Muhammed Kamal Jaber, also a refugee, told IRIN.
Demolitions began in 1980s
The demolitions and expropriations began in the 1980s when the settlement of Kiryat Arba started to expand.
"Before the 1980s my father had 200 sheep. But he had to sell the sheep because we weren't allowed to build pens. When we lost the land we had to sell more sheep because we could not grow fodder any more," Muhammed said, adding that now he has none left.
A decline in the village's income comes as previous aid efforts by international organizations have slowly diminished, residents say — paradoxically, just as their need for assistance increased.
"If you used to get by on 2,000 shekels [US$540] a month, now you need 2,500" because of inflation, said Ghassan. "But really most families only manage to make 1,500 at most. So we will need help."
"My father never needed aid. He was a shepherd. If we had jobs we wouldn't need anything," added Muhammed.
A spokesman for the Israeli Civil Administration said all homes which receive demolition orders were built without the necessary permits, and residents do not deny this.
"We've stopped trying to apply for permits because it is pointless," said Haj Azmi Jaber, the head of the village committee.
"They [Israeli authorities] consider our land to be 'agricultural land,' and they say we can't build on this land," he added.
In 2003, three homes in the village were demolished. The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, an NGO, stepped in and helped them rebuild.
A new round of "stop building" orders, which residents and aid workers said was the first step towards demolitions, was issued by Israel in December 2007, and then again in February 2008.
All three of the rebuilt homes were again targeted. The families there said they would not try to rebuild again and are likely to leave the village.
The new orders also hit the village's joint project to build a clinic. Haj Azmi donated land so the people could have a local center for mobile clinics run by the Palestinian Medical Relief Society.
"I watched them write up the order and put it on the clinic building," he said. While only partially built, it too was slated for demolition as of 26 December 2007.
"We would have finished building it by now," Haj Azmi said.
This item comes to you via IRIN, a UN humanitarian news and information service, but may not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its agencies. All IRIN material may be reposted or reprinted free-of-charge; refer to the copyright page for conditions of use. IRIN is a project of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
RLCC: This is where the saying comes from: Man's inhumanity to man. This is all based upon the false-Zionists policy of transfer (ethnic cleansing — driving people from the their lands — over the decades). The false-Zionists are awful people. They are cold- small- and hardhearted. If they could get away with extermination, just as the Nazis used against Jews and others, they would do it to all the Palestinians without shedding a tear. The false-Zionists deserve zero support for what they are doing to Palestine. We are adamantly against their whole spirit and approach to the other people in the area.
Do we judge and condemn the false-Zionists? No we do not. We don't seek any harm to any of them. We seek their repentance. We seek universal repentance. All have sinned. All must forgive and be forgiven or be damned.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)