Top Menu

Israeli Occupation Forces Set to Destroy West Bank Mosque

Vandalized Nablus Mosque

Mosque in Yatma village south of Nablus. Vandalized by Israeli settlers in 2011.

Israeli occupation forces have been busy lately in the West Bank city of Nablus.

Last week, they demolished a water reservoir serving the Kherbit al-Taweel, southeast of Nablus. Demolition orders have also been issued for a several structures in a park in the village of Burqa.

As many as 100 Palestinian olive trees have been uprooted by Israeli settlers, who routinely vandalize and destroy Palestinian property. A spike in demolition orders in recent days has accelerated an already brisk campaign this year to reduce various parts of the city to rubble.

According to Ma’an News Agency, Israeli occupation forces are now set to demolish a mosque in the al-Taweel district in southern Nablus.  

Given all the recent media attention focused on the mistreatment of religious minorities in surrounding Arab countries, it will be interesting to see if there is similar outrage when Israel demolishes a Palestinian town’s only mosque.

Israeli forces threaten to demolish mosque south of Nablus

NABLUS (Ma’an) — Israeli forces handed out a notification to a mosque south of Nablus on Tuesday morning declaring their intention to demolish it within the next few hours, an official said.

The notification ordered locals to evacuate the mosque, which is located in the al-Taweel area, so that Israeli forces could level the structure.

Ghassan Daughlas, a Palestinian Authority official who monitors settlement activities in the northern West Bank, told Ma’an that an Israeli military patrol arrived in the area and demanded Palestinians evacuate the mosque.

The religious structure is the only mosque in the area.

Daughlas added that al-Taweel area has been subject to numerous and repeated demolitions by Israeli bulldozers in recent days.

Israel has destroyed more than 558 Palestinian properties in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since the beginning of this year, displacing 919 people, according to UNOCHA.

Israel rarely grants Palestinians permits to build in much of the West Bank.

It has demolished at least 27,000 Palestinian homes and structures since occupying the West Bank in 1967, according to the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions.

The internationally recognized Palestinian territories of which the West Bank and East Jerusalem form a part have been occupied by the Israeli military since 1967.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Guess

    Don’t be confused 🙂 cause yes I’m just confirming what you already observed.

  • Guess

    Hi IIisha,

    I know I’m breaking my own words of not participating in this back and forth, but I cannot help it but to jump-in and address particularly when I see out-right double-standard, hypocrisy employed which I detest even more than blunt worded bigotry, and see it as more dangerous and more deserving to counter. I seriously believe that when any undeniably horrific situation occurs (like that executed against the Palestinian people since 1947/48 still ongoing today, or that that was executed against the European Jewish people during WW2 Europe) at any place in the world, by-any or against-any particular people (regardless of the perpetrator’s & victim’s race or religion), and if any sort of peaceful resolution talk or even a “very constructive in both logic and tone” have to go forward, then one must FIRST recognize, acknowledge who’s the victim and who’s the perpetrator.

    Any less than that — example, as attempting to equalize the perpetrator with the victim, or WORST to even go as far as to claim and accuse the victim of being guilty of the same crimes — (perhaps even slightly guiltier of it ?) with this sort of unbelievably bold, striking statements, “At least our positions are clear. I recognize that though the Arabs [Palestinians] engaged in ethnic cleansing that removed 100% [sic] of the Jews from Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, and Jews engaged in ethnic cleansing that removed 80% of the Palestinians from what became Israel…” IS merely, purely, actively engaging the denial of the victimhood of the victims, and thus by extension bleaching the undeniable horror that occurred and of course the perpetrators of said horror.

    Not to accuse anyone here, but for lack of better and stronger analogy, I think this, for me at least, is no different than those that are actively engaged in the denial of the victimhood of the Jewish victims during WW2, and of course the undeniable horror the perpetrators are solely responsible for.

    A finale thing, we can only move forward if what happened to the Palestinian people is recognized, admitted, accepted with its rightful lenses, as the SOLE ( not “also”) victims of the ethnic-cleansing/genocide that’s occurring t’ill this day in Palestine, at the hands of the Zionists that are solely responsible for. As I mentioned before, any less than that should be dismissed the same way other genocide denials are rightfully dismissed! . Also IIisha, I don’t know if you already read this paper by Martin Shaw (a genocide scholar), but a very good (yes a bit long) read for everyone.

    http://martinshaw.org/2010/06/26/palestine-in-an-international-historical-perspective-on-genocide-2/

    And last but not least, a reference by Ilan Pappe in one of his amazing lectures about the importance of abandoning in order to understand the gravity of the situation in Palestine, the sort of “equalizer”, “both-sider” talk employed here, ie, viewing with distorted lens (either intentionally or unintentionally ) the victims as perpetrators and vise-versa. Though of course the whole lecture (if not yet) is a must listen, but the last 4-5 minutes address it.

  • Chameleon_X

    Ilisha, I highly recommend that LW create a permanent “blogroll” link to this Palestinian Centre for Human Rights site, which has a treasure trove of very credible and well researched information on Palestinian civil rights issues, particularly in Gaza. I would be surprised if you hadn’t been on this site before:

    http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/

  • Just_Stopping_By

    Ilisha: I agree with a lot of what is in your comment and find it very constructive in both logic and tone.

    The Palestinians certainly have legitimate grievances, and their feelings of loss and of being victimized are both understandable and justified. I think that they deserve much better than their situation now, and that the best way to get there is by the type of constructive comment like yours above. It makes good points without demonizing the other in a way that makes constructive dialog nearly impossible.

    As I have said, I favor an independent Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem, and I applaud comments and activities that I think are likely to further that goal. I also favor an immediate Israeli end to settlements, and, in fact, a removal of settlements in the West Bank, and an immediate start to a speedy withdrawal by Israel from the West Bank among other steps that Israel could take to aid the Palestinians.

    I understand that you favor a one-state solution. But, at this point, we are sadly so far away from any peaceful solution that the first steps toward either are likely to be more or less the same: an honest recognition by both sides of the complicated history, of the pain that each has suffered, and of the need for all to be able to live in peace and security and with the ability to control their own political futures.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    At least our positions are clear. I recognize that though the Arabs engaged in ethnic cleansing that removed 100% of the Jews from Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, and Jews engaged in ethnic cleansing that removed 80% of the Palestinians from what became Israel, many were engaged in what they saw as an existential struggle for the sake of their people, and many simply did not have the same view of ethnic cleansing we have today. (This was right after the India-Pakistan war, after all.)

    I find the ethnic cleansing on both sides tragic.and feel moved by a comment Ilisha made on the Iran thread (in a different context, obviously) and think it could have applied to 1947 had the Partition Plan been accepted: “Regardless of whether the deal seems entirely fair to one side or the other, this is still welcome news. It’s a victory for peaceful negotiations, and the rejection of war.”

    The Zionists proposed a plan where there would be two states, each with a different majority and minority, with full rights for the minority in each. The arguably racist position was the one that said that Arabs could never live as a minority, but that they could only accept being a majority, paired with conflicting statements about whether they would engage in ethnic cleansing if they were a majority. A shame that their position did not allow for a victory for peace and a rejection of war.

    I can find it within my worldview to empathize with the combatants on both sides, and to mourn the deaths of all of them. I do not think that as a mere human I have the right to say, as you do, that anyone deserved to die, much less that they “DEFINITELY DESERVED TO DIE.” To me, to make such a definitive statement about thousands of others would mean that I shirk off how little I know about so many people. To the extent that I do know anything, I merely repeat again, that to the best of my understanding, the combatants in wars are typically victims of politics above their level, and I feel that they DESERVED TO LIVE.

  • AM24

    Still ranting hasbarat. Do you like humiliating yourself on the internet ?
    Pakistan can and will protect itself from all zionist terrorist attacks.
    Your bootlicking pussy musharraf and his ilk will never control Pakistan again.

  • Chameleon_X

    Ah, you caught me there. I misread “combatants” as “innocents”. No, I am not changing my position on that. Every last combatant on the Israeli side who participated in Nakba DEFINITELY DESERVED TO DIE, as I have already stated and I state emphatically again. I was only referring to reciprocal injustices against innocent Jews during that war, as I have also already stated. I take back my comment about your pretty straw man. What I should have said is that you sure know how to put lipstick on a pig – and, wow, that was a lot of lipstick.

    “if you think there is a ban on mosque building in Israel, provide some proof. Is there no link that supports your unsupported claim?”

    LOL. How about you first point me to ANY real estate site in Israel where Muslims can buy land to build a mosque like they can in countries that actually respect diversity of religion? Do that and I would be happy to eat my words. Oh, and while you are at it, let me know where Muslims can buy land to build a home in Israel. Oh, right, there is no ban on that either, so the ban magically doesn’t exist!

    “Second, if you want to describe the massacres as merely crimes, I can live with that.”

    Of course you can, since you have STILL not presented any facts to show that any such massacres occurred, let alone that serial massacres occurred all connected together to the “Damascus Affair”, which in turn was part of some systematic racism against Jews in Syria! All that you are doing is parroting more of your Zionist grade school propaganda about how the existentially oppressed Jews (now all the way back to 1840) deserved a racist homeland exclusive of other “races” because it was the only way to ensure their survival in the face of all these serial massacres coming to get them. The only problem is that your grade school education left out the hard facts, which you now embarrassingly don’t have.

    Even more embarrassing, you STILL can’t bring yourself to condemn the anti-democratic racist Nationalism upon which the entire state of Israel was founded. And why, oh why, is that?

  • Guess

    I do not want to take part of this back & forth, but I couldn’t help but notice some outrageous, hypocritical ways employed here.

    I believe this whole back & forth is about when religious persecution and even at time massacres occurs, right?. But what is utterly abhorrent is that while for one group suffering is claimed as “massacre”, when the group in question is doing their own multiple massacres, including a systematic ethnic-cleansing/genocide of a whole group of people from their own land, they are referred to as “combatants” of some sort of imaginative “1948 War”, and not as colonialist ethnic-cleansing perpetrators caring an ideology set to destroy a people. I see that as a sign of a particular nastiness, cluelessness, bigotry, or ignorance.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    I guess I have three points.

    First, there have been many mosques built in Israel recently, whether in Abu Ghosh, renovations in Jaffa, or elsewhere. I think it’s time for you to put up: if you think there is a ban on mosque building in Israel, provide some proof. Is there no link that supports your unsupported claim?

    I say this because I will agree that, barring new information, the seizure of land from Abu Ghosh was wrong and should be rectified. I will disagree with Israeli policies, but it’s tough to do that if you keep getting facts wrong. For example, Netanyahu supported a proposed bill to ban loudspeakers at houses of worship, not ban the Muslim call to prayer. You discredit your positions when you overreach with unsupported and incorrect facts.

    Second, if you want to describe the massacres as merely crimes, I can live with that. Of course, it means that the occurrence of actual massacres in the Arab world in the Zionist era is a racist manifestation of some forms of anti-Zionism, targeting a religio-ethnic group outside an area of actual military conflict or land dispute. (E.g., Aleppo 1947, Cairo 1945, Tripoli 1945.)

    Third, you quote me (my bolding) saying, “Whether it’s the massacres of the 1800s, the combatants on both sides of the 1948 War, or Jewish and Palestinian civilians massacred in that war, I find all those deaths tragic, undeserved, and regrettable.” You then say, “Hey, we agree on something! That’s another pretty straw man though.”

    Actually, I am glad the we agree and that that was a straw man. Of course, you previously disagreed, saying (again, my bolding), “By bringing up the Israeli dead on Nakba, you are implicitly casting those dead as victims, when they were not. They were a consequence of Zionists’ own ethnic cleansing. As far as I am concerned, every last one of them who were combatants or participated in Nakba deserved to die.http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/11/israels-siege-of-gaza-is-sadistic-and-illegal-yet-us-support-continues/#comment-1137458715

    I am glad you evolved enough to effectively repudiate your statement from earlier this week that “combatants … deserved to die” and now agree such deaths were “undeserved” and that such a statement fails even a straw man bar.

  • Chameleon_X

    So you found one desperately needed mosque expansion project, as if that makes the razing of mosques OK elsewhere and Netanyahu’s attempted banning of the call to prayer across Israel and access to mosques like Al-Aqsa justified? Are you serious? Moreover, even in this one case, it was not the state of Israel behind this decision, but one individual, the major of Abu Ghosh, Salim Jabr. Note well his stated motivation for this symbolic gesture (per http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/28/israel-mosque-idUSL5N0JD2AK20131128):

    “Jabr says 85 percent of the village’s farmland was seized to make way for new Israeli communities and military camps. Abu Ghosh is now in a legal dispute with a neighboring ultra-Orthodox Jewish village for control of a British-era fort.”

    Did you catch that? He said 85% of the Muslim farmland was seized by the state of Israel in the same town where this mosque was built! Why would the Israelis even care about a larger replacement mosque, which provides great propaganda cover for their real objective of seizing more land? Moreover, if they forced Muslims out of Abu Ghosh because they can’t practice their religion, where would most of them go next? Look at the map: East Jerusalem, the last place Zionists want more Muslims. What a joke. Thank you for helping expose the continued hypocrisy of Israel.

    “I was just putting recent events into context to show that they are not that unusual.”

    No. We are still waiting on your facts — even just ONE — to show that destruction of mosques in Syria was “not that unusual”, let alone comparable to the state-sponsored destruction of mosques and hindrances to Muslim religious practices in Israel.

    “Your point (1) contradicts the first part of what I quote: if it grew to include Muslims, then it was not solely between Jews and Christians as you claim.”

    No. It does not contradict. The blood libel incident was between Christians and Jews, NOT triggered by Muslims. Certain Muslims were likely guilty of abusing their judicial responsibility and clearly breaking their own laws of justice to make the consequences of the incident worse, but this appears to have been politically-motivated per the article, not religiously-motivated. Again, the whole point here is that this represents nothing more than an isolated incident of injustice, not systematic racism against Jews by Muslims justifying some ridiculous racist state of Israel a hundred years later.

    “As for the massacres, I really don’t have much interest in providing more than one link”

    And I have no interest in fact-free claims, especially ones with likely no remote connection to this “Damascus Affair” whatsoever. I have little doubt that some sort of crimes likely occurred on those various dates so that Bodansky can avoid being pinned down as a complete fraud, but I am not buying any fact-free claims of serial “massacres” stemming from this “Damascus Affair”. Didn’t it occur to you that the “Aftermath” claim of the Wikipedia article was quite suspect given how many of these so called “massacres” were not only far outside of Damascus, but far outside of Syria too?

    “I am not interested in casting aspersions on those who lived in the past or downplaying massacres of anyone. Whether it’s the massacres of the 1800s, the combatants on both sides of the 1948 War, or Jewish and Palestinian civilians massacred in that war, I find all those deaths tragic, undeserved, and regrettable.”

    Hey, we agree on something! That’s another pretty straw man though.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    From your earlier post: “If this is not generous, then what word should be used, by contrast, for
    banning the building of mosques (funded by Muslims) in Israel” Umm, the word is “false.” http://rt.com/news/chechnya-build-israel-mosque-039/ .

    From your more recent post: “Thank you for conceding my rebuttal that this incident cannot in any way be a justification …” I never made a claim that this incident justifies anything, much less your false claims. I was just putting recent events into context to show that they are not that unusual.

    “No. The actual Damascus Blood Libel Affair was solely between Jews and Christians. … As for your claim that “it quickly grew to include involvement by the Muslim authorities and by Muslim vigilantes”, this is 1) a secondary effect rather than a cause, and 2) not supported by any facts you have presented.”

    Your point (1) contradicts the first part of what I quote: if it grew to include Muslims, then it was not solely between Jews and Christians as you claim.

    As for point (2), the link notes, “In spite of the stoic courage displayed by the sufferers, Sherif Pasha and Ratti Menton agreed to the trumped up charges. While Ratti Menton published libels against the Jews in French and in Arabic, Sherif Pasha wrote to his master, Muhammad Ali, demanding authorization to execute the murderers of Father Thomas.” That covers the Muslim authorities.

    As for the massacres, I really don’t have much interest in providing more than one link, especially since you are likely to challenge others if you don’t like the authors. If you don’t like the author, you probably won’t like others and I’m not going to play a game of continuing until I find something you like. If you want to believe that these did not occur, that’s your business. And if they actually did not occur, then I guess that makes me happier about history. Since that would be a good thing, I’d thank you for correcting something I read.

    My only point here was that the recent destruction of a synagogue in Damascus was not an unprecedented event that could have occurred only due to modern politics, though that may have been a catalyst.

    I am not interested in casting aspersions on those who lived in the past or downplaying massacres of anyone. Whether it’s the massacres of the 1800s, the combatants on both sides of the 1948 War, or Jewish and Palestinian civilians massacred in that war, I find all those deaths tragic, undeserved, and regrettable.

  • Tanveer Khan

    That would be a good idea. I nominate Fickle Fat Cat for most disruptive troll too.

    PS: I’m actually serious about the idea. xD

  • Tanveer Khan

    I remember seeing a commentor called Beautiful Muslim Doll…. can’t remember what she used to say though….

    Maybe we should hold an annual award for the most trolly commentor! Showcase all their comments throughout the year in an article. xD

  • The greenmantle

    Looks like three sock puppets then
    Sir David

Powered by Loon Watchers