Dr Mercola

Story at-a-glance

• Choosing between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces is a false choice. The side we should be on is the side of innocent civilians, regardless of where they live. Only by being against war will we stand against the correct enemy because, ultimately, most if not all wars are fought for the benefit of central bankers and their globalist allies
• Those who side with warmongers choose enslavement and the destruction of mankind, as the sabre rattling in the Middle East is a tool to further centralize power and control over the global population
• The next action item in the globalist takeover includes a cyberattack on the banks before the end of next year. The cyberattack will destroy the current banking system and usher in programmable central bank digital currencies and eliminate privacy online, requiring everyone to have a digital identification tied to their ISP
• All online activity will be surveilled and analyzed by artificial intelligence, and the data used to prevent crime before it happens. Thought-crimes will also have ramifications, potentially resulting in the seizure of private property and/or removal of “privileges” previously understood as human rights
• Everyone must now choose between enslavement or freedom. Not making a conscious choice is itself a choice. If you choose freedom, you need to make plans for how to exist outside the slave system being put into place and support Big Tech alternatives that offer complete privacy

Tim Anderson

Internationalist 360°

A general view shows the Israeli barrier and, behind it, East Jerusalem neighborhoods, Jan. 29, 2020. REUTERS/Ammar Awad

The ‘two states’ idea remains as a barrier to building an anti-apartheid movement, as is our duty under international law to dismantle a racist regime, just as was done in South Africa.

The persistent myth of a ‘two-state’ solution for Israeli-occupied Palestine is a cruel, 75-year-old lie which has provided cover for the construction of a monstrous and genocidal apartheid regime. It blinds the international community to both the current reality and to the way forward.

UN resolutions on Palestine are badly outdated, frozen in a time where the ‘two states’ myth was more plausible and locked into a wording acceptable to the colony’s chief sponsors. Yet the only practical way forward, today, is the South African road: dismantling the apartheid regime.

That road is obscured by the ‘two states’ myth, as two former Israeli leaders have observed. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (2007) recognised that “if the day comes when the [idea of a] two-state solution collapses and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights”, then we will face an “apartheid-like struggle … [and] the State of Israel is finished” (McCarthy, 2007). Similarly, in 2017, another former Israeli PM, Ehud Barak, warned that the regime was “on a slippery slope” towards apartheid (Kaplan, 2017).

Although the idea of ‘two states’ is embedded in UNSC resolutions – beginning with UNSC Resolution 242 of 1967 – that fact only highlights the failure of international resolutions to recognise changing realities. The Israelis have breached their obligations under Resolution 242 and there are now multiple independent reports branding the Israeli regime an apartheid state (CCHS, 2022) and therefore a crime against humanity, which the international community has a responsibility to dismantle (Falk and Tilley, 2017). Those reports are not yet recognised at the UN because key sponsors of the Israeli regime maintain veto power.

[…]

It is argued here that the “two-state solution” and the idea of a “return to 1967 borders” is misleading and obscures the current reality and the likely future of Palestine, for these reasons:

• The ‘two-state’ notion holds a fig leaf over the reality of a single apartheid regime;

• All the conditions set up by the UNSC (res. 242 and its successors) for a “return to 1967 borders” have been destroyed by the Israeli regime;

• The apartheid Israeli regime must be dismantled, because a predatory, ethnic cleansing regime cannot co-exist with an independent Palestine.

Yet, as Washington and the Israelis understand very well, the distraction of ‘two states’ hides apartheid and prevents the construction of a broad anti-apartheid movement.

Any remaining possibility of ‘two states’ was finally destroyed by the constant Israeli theft of Palestinian land and the refusal to vacate annexed Lebanese and Syrian land. The idea of a “return to 1967 borders” simply hides the reality of an illegitimate apartheid regime.

A fig leaf to cover apartheid

[…]

The founders of the Zionist colony wanted all of historic Palestine, or as much as they could seize. Zionist pioneer, the Austrian Theodor Herzl, said the Jewish colony would be part of “a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence” (Herzl 1896).

The majority view of a UN report on the ‘Future Government of Palestine’ (which did not include any Palestinians) formed the basis of UNGA resolution 181, which recommended the creation of an Arab state, a Jewish state and a ‘Special Regime’ of international status for Jerusalem (UNGA,1947). The population of Palestine in 1946 was 65% Arab and 33% Jewish, but the committee recommended that the area for the Jewish state be 55.5% of the total area of Palestine.

Resolution 181 passed on 29 November 1947 with 33 votes in favour, 13 against and 10 abstentions (Hammond 2010; UNGA 1947), and the British and the UN left the Zionist groups to carry out their ethnic cleansing (Pappe 2006). Contrary to popular myth, the UN did not “create” an Israeli state; UN members simply stood back and allowed the Zionists to seize land and purge entire populations.

In 1947-48, David Ben Gurion and his disciples were very clear that in creating their entity they would destroy entire villages, wipe out all resistance and expel the Arab populations “beyond the borders of the state” (Pappe 2006: Ch.4). Ben Gurion believed 80-90% of the British mandatory territory was needed, and in 1947 declared that ‘only a state with at least 80% Jews’ would be ‘a viable and stable [Jewish] state’. His plans called for the killing of Palestinian political leaders, senior officials, inciters and financial supporters, the damaging of transport, water wells, mills, villages, clubs and cafes and expulsion of remaining Arab populations (Pappe 2006: xii-xiii, 26, 28, 48).

In 1988, as the first Intifada (uprising) was raging, Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat announced the PLO had accepted UN Resolutions 242 and 338, which seemed to grant “Israel” (actually “every state in the area”) an opportunity to “secure and recognised boundaries”, effectively recognising an Israeli state, so long as it withdrew its occupation of Arab lands (Damen 2022).

The Oslo Accords of the 1990s, based on resolution 242 (UNIP, 1993: Art 1), raised hopes, but what followed showed that the Israelis had used these agreements as a cover for the expansion of illegal “settlements” in the occupied territories (Damen 2022). The Palestinian Authority (PA), set up as a temporary body, pending the establishment of a Palestinian state (PASSIA, 2014: 4-5), then became effectively a municipality of the Israeli regime.

Yet the annexation of Palestinian land on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem actually increased under the Oslo regime (Damen 2022). Despite Israeli PM Rabin’s claim to ‘freeze’ the ‘settlements’, they grew due to a burst of investment in infrastructure (Helm, 1993; Ogram, 1995; Ofran, 2020). Palestinians actually lost more land after recognition of the expanding Israeli regime and the creation of the PA.

[…]

International law? Conditions for a ‘return to 1967 borders’ have been destroyed by the Israelis 

International law (Res. 242 and its successors) is often cited to justify the right of the Israeli regime to exist, ignoring the Israeli breaches of its obligations to withdraw from occupied land and ignoring the fact that they have never defined borders. All conditions set up by Res 242 (1967) for a “return to 1967 borders” have been systematically destroyed by successive Israeli regimes, with the support of their Anglo-American and European sponsors.

After the Zionist surprise attack on Arab states in 1967, and the occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Syrian Golan, parts of South Lebanon and the Egyptian Sinai, UN resolution 242 (1967) was passed with Israeli support because, while it called for an Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, it also called on the Arab states to recognize an Israeli regime, under certain conditions.

The relevant text of UNSC resolution 242 called for:

“(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

“(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force” (UNSC, 1967).

Since that time, the Zionist entity (as it is called by the many Arab and Muslim states which do not recognise this entity as a state) only withdrew from the Egyptian Sinai (after a bilateral peace deal), then invaded Lebanon to destroy the PLO. Even after the Israelis were expelled from Lebanon (in 2000 and 2006) by the resistance group Hezbollah, they held onto some Lebanese lands, the Syrian Golan, and then proceeded to consolidate their annexation of large parts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The Israeli regime has violated the conditions of Res 242 so severely that it is arguable their suggested “right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries” has been abrogated; they never even tried to declared borders on their several frontier extensions. They similarly ignored UNGA Resolution 194 (1948) to allow Palestinian refugees a right to return. More importantly, the international branding of the Israeli state as an apartheid regime threatens to remove any state ‘rights’, other than the duty to dismantle apartheid (Falk and Tilley, 2017).

Though there was some internal debate, the Israelis never intended to vacate the lands they occupied in 1967. The liberal side debated whether they should permanently seize between 40% and 80% of the West Bank, while the openly fascist faction, led by Likud and Netanyahu, always wanted it all. The latter argument is often referred to as the ‘Yinon Plan’ (Yinon, 1982), a reiteration of older Zionist ambitions to create a ‘Greater Israel’, from “from the Brook of Egypt [the Nile River] to the Euphrates” (Herzl 1960: 711). This implies annexation of much more Syrian territory, beyond the Golan.

[…]

Via https://libya360.wordpress.com/2023/11/03/palestine-beyond-the-two-states-myth/

Episode 8: World War I as a Revolutionary Opportunity

The Rise of Communism from Marx to Lenin

Dr Vejas Gabriel Liulevius (2019)

Film Review

According to Liulevius, it took the “breakdown of civilization.” (ie World War I) to bring socialists into government for the first time. The Second International, founded in 1889, was committed to preventing war. However the first world war would irreparably fracture the socialist movement because too many members were patriots. Only Russian socialists declined to fund the war. In contrast German socialists, who really hated Russia, thought conquering the Russians would enable them to set Russian workers free.

In 1912, the German Social Democratic (SDP) party voted to support the German government if they declared war. In Italy, socialist Mussolini was imprisoned for his campaign opposing Italy’s imperialist war in Libya.

Lenin denounced the decision by the Russian SDP to support the war and dropped his SDP membership to become a communist. In contrast, Mussolini dropped his opposition to war and enlisted in the Italian army in 1915.

In Germany, Rosa Luxemburg and her partner Karl Liebknecht split from the German SDP over the war issue and organized the Spartacus League. Luxemburg was in jail at the time for urging German soldiers to resist conscription.

In 1915, two dozen antiwar socialists (including Trotsky and Lenin) met in Switzerland and made plans to dissolve the Second International. A Menshevik before the war, Trotsky fled to Switzerland, France, Spain to escape arrest before ending up in New York.

In February 1917, Russia had a second revolution instigated by women marching to demand bread for their children. Russian troops sent to disperse the march ended up joining it. After another massive round of strikes, Nicholas II abdicated and the Duma formed a provisional government. The latter was slow to implement reforms, arguing the need for properly elected representatives before undertaking major political initiatives.

There followed a period of dual power between the Petrograd central soviet and the Duma.

Lenin’s fellow exile Alexander Parvus approached German security forces about organizing a special train for Lenin and 31 fellow revolutionaries to transit Germany to return to Russia. German security cleared all the platforms of the stations Lenin’s train tranited, and both police and army officers were forbidden to board to check passports and identification papers.

The journey took Lenin and his Bolshevik comrades across the Baltic Sea to Finland (then part of Russia), where they boarded a second train to Petrograd. On being greeted by a rapturous crowd of Bolsheviks, he gave a short speech promising them peace (an end to their war with Germany*) and land.

*The Russian capitol St Petersburg was renamed Petrograd at start of World War I because it sounded less German.

*Russia had mobilized 12 million men for the war between Germany/Turkey and the other European powers. Owing to Russia’s limited industrial capacity, many were sent to the front without rifles.

At the same time, the Pandemic Treaty is busily working its way through the bureaucratic maze, destined to become law sometime in the next year or so.

We’ve written about that a lot too.

Consider, the WHO is the only body on Earth empowered to declare a “pandemic”.

Consider, the official term is not “pandemic”, but rather “Public Health Emergency of International Concern”.

Consider, a “public health emergency of international concern”, does not necessarily mean a disease.

It could mean, and I’m just spit-balling here, oh, I don’t know – maybe… climate change?

Consider, finally, that one clause in the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” would empower the WHO to declare a PHEIC on “precautionary principle” [my emphasis]:

Future declarations of a PHEIC by the WHO Director-General should be based on the precautionary principle where warranted

Essentially, once the new legislation is in place, the plan writes itself:

• Put new laws in place enabling global “emergency measures” in the event of a future “public health emergency”
• Declare climate change a public health emergency, or maybe a “potential public health emergency”
• Activate emergency measures – like climate lockdowns – until climate change is “fixed”

See the end game here? It’s just that simple.

Oh, and we won’t be able to complain, because “climate denial” is going to be illegal. At least, if prominent climate activists like this one get their way.

[…]

Via https://off-guardian.org/2023/10/30/why-are-the-globalists-calling-climate-change-a-public-health-crisis/

Timothy Alexander Guzman, Silent Crow News

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and … US troops entering the war will face Hamas in Northern Gaza and that will quickly turn into a quagmire.  The main objective for Hamas was to lure Israeli forces into Gaza and fight their war, on their terms.  It is certain that Hamas who is considered a terrorist organization by the West will use ‘Hit and Run’ tactics that has defeated major colonial empires throughout history.  Hit and run basically means that Hamas will launch surprise attacks, then they will quickly pull-back before the IDF can respond.  This will continue throughout the war, so it is guaranteed that the number of dead Israeli troops will rise.

The War in Vietnam is an example of how successful Hit and Run tactics were when a communist-led nationalist movement mobilized against France, a colonial empire which was defeated and eventually forced out of the country.  Then the US government decided to get involved under President Lyndon B. Johnson who feared that the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and the Viet Cong, an armed communist movement allied with the NVA in South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos formally known as the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam would soon make its way to the south and turn it into a communist stronghold.

Washington was concerned about how Vietnam could create a domino effect of communist states in Southeast Asia, so they sent military “advisors” to assist the South Vietnamese army, and by early 1963, they had sent 12,000 US troops.  Two years later, 600,000 US troops were stationed in Vietnam in preparation to fight the NVA and the Viet Cong, but one of the major problems for US troops was that they were trained for a conventional war as they were obviously ill prepared to face the resistance in Vietnam who had a well-trained fighting force who used hit and run tactics, placed booby traps laced with bombs and conducted numerous ambushes that shook unsuspecting US troops throughout the war.

For several years after, US troop deaths increased while they continued to bomb targets in North Vietnam.  The US had also bombed Cambodia and then Laos from March 18^th, 1969, to May 26, 1970, in what was known as Operation Menu in hopes of striking the NVA and the Viet Cong believed to be in those countries to rest from battle fatigue, or to resupply and train their troops.

Many civilians were killed in Southeast Asia, in Vietnam, close to a million people died with the majority being military personal.  By 1973, US troops began withdrawing from Southeast Asia with more than 58,000 dead and more than 300,000 injured including those who suffered from the psychological impact from the war and later turned to drugs and alcohol, many of them even committed suicide.

Hamas is the New ‘Viet Cong’?

So, who and what is Hamas exactly? Was Hamas an Israeli creation to rival the despised Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)?  Or maybe it was to create a civil war without any Israeli fighting in it? At the time, the Israelis probably saw it as a divide and conquer strategy to seize the remaining territories while Hamas and the PLO kill each other, at the time, I would guess that it seemed like the perfect idea for Zionist hardliners.

In 2009, US Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) gave a speech on the House floor and said that Israel had essentially created Hamas:

What’s happening in the Middle East, in particular with Gaza right now, we have some moral responsibility for both sides in a way because we provide help and funding for both Arab nations and Israel.  We definitely have a moral responsibility, especially now today the weapons being used to kill so many Palestinians are American weapons and American funds essentially are being used for this, but there’s a political liability, which I think is something we fail to look at because too often there’s so much blowback from our intervention in areas that we shouldn’t be involved in. 

You know Hamas, if you look at the history, you’ll find out that Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel because they wanted Hamas to counteract Yasser Arafat, you say, well, yeah, it was better then and served its purpose, but we didn’t want Hamas to do this. So, then we, as Americans, say, well, we have such a good system; we’re going to impose this on the world. We’re going to invade Iraq and teach people how to be democrats. We want free elections. So, we encouraged the Palestinians to have a free election. They do, and they elect Hamas, So, we first, indirectly, and directly through Israel, helped establish Hamas. Then we have an election where Hamas becomes dominant, so we have to kill them. It just doesn’t make sense.

During the 80s, we were allied with Osama bin Laden, and we were contending with the Soviets. It was at that time our CIA thought it was good if we radicalize the Muslim world. So, we finance the Madrassas schools to radicalize the Muslims in order to compete with the Soviets. There is too much blowback. 

There are a lot of reasons why we should oppose this resolution. It’s not in the interest of the United States, it is not in the interest of Israel either

Hamas has evolved in some ways, to some people, they are the resistance against Israeli occupation, especially for the Palestinian children who personally experienced the Gaza war of 2008.  Young boys and girls at that time grew up without their mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters who were either killed, imprisoned without due process, others were maimed and permanently injured by IDF forces.  The massive death toll and destruction was a shock to these children, many were and are still traumatized, then they became adults with deep rooted hatred towards the Israeli and US governments.

Over the years, nothing has changed, the Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank fear for their lives as they face constant Israeli airstrikes and sniper fire in the largest outdoor prison on the planet and the list goes on, and people in the West wonder why some Palestinians have joined Hamas.

For more than 75 years of Israeli occupation, the Palestinians whether Muslim or Christian have been physically displaced and turned into refugees, many were murdered, jailed, tortured, harassed, spit-on, you name it, they had it.  They don’t care anymore, when people have nothing left to lose, they risk everything.  Palestinians prefer fighting for their freedoms rather than to live as slaves and who can blame them?  At any moment, they can get killed by an Israeli airstrike or bullet, they may even get stopped on the street by Israeli forces at times  and get arrested for just being a Palestinian and possibly face torture in prison.

The Palestinian people will not give up, they will fight with the support of most of the world. The majority of the Middle East supports Palestine.  Israel’s power is supported by the US government, both Democrats and Republicans fully support Israel even though the US is in $33 trillion in debt, which means the US government cannot even afford peace, let alone war.

[….]

Via https://silentcrownews.com/?p=8032

Candace Owens

The Daily Wire

Big Pharma is getting more aggressive with its tactics to gain control. Why? Because it’s threatened by the increasing number of people who are becoming more aware of their ploys. Not everyone trusts their doctors quite like they did before. COVID led to the collapse of the medical mirage, so people have questions. And people want answers. We are prodding the narrative: What exactly are its intentions with our children? What is going on with the number of vaccines? What is going on with pharmaceutical care? Big Pharma is answering by passing legislation as to whether you should — or should not — have access to your children’s medical records, decisions, and medicines. CarolinaCARE is the first of what I’m sure will be many instances to come of medical professionals deeming children as adults so parents lose access to their children’s medical records.

CarolinaCARE is a home-delivery pharmacy service owned by Atrium Health and based out of North Carolina. But CarolinaCARE serves multiple states that have different laws pertaining to access to health information, which includes prescriptions, so they have sent out a notice to their clients because they are making a change “to remain compliant with laws in all the states CarolinaCARE services to ensure continued privacy of your child’s prescription records.”

Privacy from whom? From you, the parent.

Starting November 1, children who are 12- to 17-years-old must create new accounts on their website so they have access to their prescriptions and medications because their parents will no longer have access. That’s correct: Parents cannot view or manage their children’s prescriptions. Written in black and white on their notice read the following words: “The laws are intended to allow minors to receive prescription medication for sensitive issues, without worrying about how their parents may react.” If you have questions, you are encouraged to read their FAQs.

I have a lot of questions, the first being, how is that even plausible? How is it legal to essentially tell parents they are no longer parents? By making this change, CarolinaCARE is basically saying a 12-year-old is able to make a decision in terms of what prescriptions they are putting in their body. How does that happen? Children cannot do certain things until they are 18-years-old, when they become adults. So it completely defies logic that they would be able to make decisions pertaining to what prescription they should be on — prescriptions that have real-world implications. Of course, a parent should be in the room with a doctor when deciding whether or not their children should be on medication because parents are thinking about their child’s future. Adults can consider the possible impact and effects of prescriptions, whereas a child does not yet have that capability. That’s why they are children and why children have parents. Why would they do this?

My best guess is that because many adults are recognizing they should have never been put on drugs as a child, the move is going to be to take the medical decision-making power away from those adults. There has been public debate among adults about having been put on medications as a child, whether it be medications like Adderall or medications to transition them. More and more adults are openly speaking out against drugs, saying they have ruined their lives. Big Pharma knows that once people become adults, they can see that more clearly — because they aren’t 12.

Yet CarolinaCARE is essentially signaling to 12-year-olds that they are now adults and can make adult decisions. So if a child professes they feel as though they are in the wrong body, a doctor could give that child prescription drugs to transition — drugs that will render that child infertile in their adult years. These are the same drugs given to pedophiles to castrate them. But children are not going to know that because they exist and think in the moment. They don’t consider what their adult life might be like; they don’t even consider what the next day will be like. They will fall prey to believing they can feel safer from their parents in making these decisions alone.

To make matters worse (if that’s even possible), the state is getting involved because they want to further this. If this is successful and they are allowed to treat 12-year-olds as though they are adults and put them on medications that can potentially harm them in the future, they are inevitably going to be inundated with massive lawsuits against CarolinaCARE in the years to come. And I hope that there are massive lawsuits because this is absolutely despicable.

If a child turns 12 after November 1, this change will automatically take place. While this is hard news to digest, it’s news you need to be aware of, especially if you are a parent. Because while CarolinaCARE may only be in certain states now, it will be coming to a state near you.

[…]

Via https://www.dailywire.com/news/big-pharmas-shocking-move-to-medicate-kids-without-parental-consent

Celia Farber

Isn’t it extraordinary what can happen when a truly curious man gets fired from a very well paid gig at a para-journalistic cable news network and just gets to talk to whomever he wishes, anywhere in the world?

[…]

Here’s Tucker’s Tweet.

The “powers that be” are becoming the “powers that were,” and they are surely on the ropes if Tucker Carlson has gone in there and gotten the voice they least want heard—possibly of anybody alive.

It means we will actually find out how Julian Assange is doing, and whatever is left of Julian, he will convey to Tucker, the essentials.

This we know. Julian Assange never wastes a single word.

If I were La Cabal, this would really, really freak me out.

Tucker and Julian.

“…because the goal is the have an endless war, not a successful war.”

—Julian Assange

[…]

Via https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/breaking-tucker-carlson-went-to-see?r=83qir

UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

Nearly 2,000 Palestinians displaced amid settler violence since 2022; 43% since 7 October 2023

Shortly after armed Israeli settlers threatened to kill them if they did not leave, 24 Palestinian households totaling 141 people, half of whom are children, were displaced from Khirbat Zanuta in the southern West Bank. On 28 October 2023, the families dismantled about 50 residential and animal structures and vacated the area with their 5,000 livestock. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has previously documented settler attacks in this community, most recently on 12, 21 and 26 October. About two thirds of the families that comprised this community are now displaced.

“On 26 October, settlers attacked us, destroying our homes, water tanks, solar panels, and cars,” said 43-year-old Abu Khaled from Khirbet Zanuta. “I felt the presence of death so tangibly as if I saw it with my own eyes. I was torn between staying on or leaving the place I love, where I belong, where I may die. On 28 October, I made the hardest decision in my life: to leave Zanuta and leave everything behind, as memories. I did this to protect my children.”

These experiences are not unique to Khirbat Zanuta. In 15 herding communities across the West Bank, at least 98 households comprising 828 people, including 313 children, have been displaced amid settler violence or increased movement restrictions since 7 October. That was the day of Hamas’ attack in Israel, where Palestinians from Gaza killed an estimated 1,400 people, injuring others and taking hostages. Since then, Israeli settler violence has increased significantly, from an already high average of three incidents per day thus far in 2023 to a current average of seven per day.

Settler-related incidents per day (round average)

In this period, OCHA has recorded 171 settler attacks against Palestinians, resulting in Palestinian casualties (26 incidents), damage to Palestinian properties (115 incidents), or both (30 incidents). Cases of harassment, trespass, and intimidation are not included in these statistics when they do not result in damage or casualties, although they too increase the pressure on Palestinians to leave.

On 9 October, forty people were displaced from the herding community of Al Ganoub. Armed Israeli settlers had raided the community, threatening residents at gunpoint, saying they would kill them if they did not leave within an hour. Abu Jamal, 75, is one of those who were displaced. “Settlers set fire to our tent and stole my goats,” he told us. “They destroyed everything that had kept me here.” Another residential structure was also set on fire during this incident.

Since 7 October, access restrictions, typically imposed by the Israeli authorities, have intensified throughout the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. These are particularly severe in areas near Israeli settlements and in the ‘Seam Zone,’ the Palestinian area isolated by Israel’s 712-kilometre-long Barrier in the West Bank.

Settlers too have imposed movement restrictions, blocking access roads to Palestinian communities. Such measures have limited Palestinians’ access to essential services and livelihoods. In some cases, settlers have also damaged water resources relied upon by herding communities, depriving them of a fundamental human necessity.

Palestinian herding communities are often highly dependent on humanitarian assistance, including health and education services. However, since restrictions intensified, many of the services have had to stop.

Using firearms to intimidate Palestinians

On 12 October, eight households, comprising 51 people, were displaced from Shihda WaHamlan herding community in Nablus, after settlers threatened them at gunpoint, saying they would kill them and set their tents on fire during the night. One of the family members, 52-year-old Abu Ismail, stated: “I had no choice but to leave everything behind to protect my children.”

More than one in every three settler-related incidents since 7 October has involved settlers using firearms to threaten Palestinians, including by opening fire. In almost half the cases, Israeli forces accompanied or actively supported the attackers. Many of the latter incidents were followed by confrontations between Israeli forces and Palestinians, where three Palestinians were killed, and dozens injured. Eight Palestinians were killed by settlers directly, as of the end of October. Damage or destruction was caused to 24 residential structures, 40 structures used for farming, 67 vehicles and more than 400 trees and saplings.

Settlements are illegal under international humanitarian law and, compounded by settler violence, they have for many years resulted in increased risks and heightened humanitarian needs among Palestinians.

Settler-driven displacement predates 7 October; those remaining are at elevated risk

While more intense, settler-driven displacement did not start with Hamas’ deadly attack. In September, OCHA revealed that 1,105 people from 28 Communities – about 12 per cent of their population – had been displaced from their areas of residence since 2022, citing settler violence and the prevention of access to grazing land by settlers as the primary reason. Four communities had been completely displaced and remained empty. In six other communities, over 50 per cent of the residents had left since 2022 and in seven additional communities more than 25 per cent had left.

Combined with the latest figures, the overall number of people displaced amid settler violence since 2022 has reached 1,933. Separately, OCHA reported in early October, before the current escalation, on the displacement of thirteen families comprising 84 people from Masafer Yatta; these people cited increased movement restrictions imposed by Israeli forces as the primary reason for their move. Additionally, home demolitions carried out by the Israeli authorities have displaced another 1,032 Palestinians in 2022 and 1,352 Palestinians so far in 2023.

At the same time, concerns are high over families who have remained and continue to endure attacks by settlers. Mohamad Abu Seif (Abu Khalid), 90, has been living with his family in the herding community of Ein Shibli for over 40 years. While they have remained, they are exposed to repetitive threats and harassment by settlers. “They prevent us from grazing our sheep,” he told us.

He and his family are among five Palestinian households, comprising 33 people, who remain in this community. All of them are at risk of displacement as grazing areas diminish by the actions of Israeli settlers. Eight families, comprising 51 people, have already left this area since the 7 October. While Abu Khalid is still there, he and his family have no assurances that they would be able to remain for much longer.

[…]

Via https://ochaopt.org/content/other-mass-displacement-while-eyes-are-gaza-settlers-advance-west-bank-herders