❶ Israeli forces demolish Bedouin village of al-Araqib for 105th time
. . . ❶― (a) Israeli authorities demolish graves in East Jerusalem cemetery
. . . ❶― (b) Israeli authorities demolish home in Jerusalem-area village of Beit Hanina

• Background:   “From Colonization To Separation: Exploring The Structure Of Israel’s Occupation.” Third World Quarterly.

❷ Fear involves Jerusalem village as Israel issues demolishing orders
❸ Netanyahu’s Logic Prevails: Western Leaders Grow Deaf to Israeli Abuses
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
❶ ISRAELI  FORCES  DEMOLISH  BEDOUIN  VILLAGE  OF  AL-ARAQIB  FOR  105TH  TIME 
Ma’an News Agency
Nov. 2, 2016
Israeli bulldozers raided and demolished the unrecognized Palestinian Bedouin village of al-Araqib in the Negev desert for the 105th time on Wednesday morning.
___Officers from Israeli police’s Yoav unit, the section created to implement demolitions of Bedouin homes in the Negev, were heavily deployed in the area.
___Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld confirmed to Ma’an that police forces were deployed in the area to carry out demolitions on a “number of buildings” in accordance with a court order.        More . . .

. . . ❶― (A)  ISRAELI  AUTHORITIES  DEMOLISH  GRAVES  IN  EAST  JERUSALEM  CEMETERY 
Ma’an News Agency  
Nov. 1, 2016
Israeli Nature and Parks Authority forces demolished several graves inside a Palestinian cemetery in occupied East Jerusalem on Tuesday morning, according to local sources.     ___Sheikh Omar al-Kiswani, the director of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, told Ma’an that forces from the Nature and Parks Authority raided the Bab al-Rahma cemetery — which runs along the eastern wall of Jerusalem’s Old City — and demolished six Palestinian graves and crumbling tombstones.     More . . .  
. . . ❶― (B)  ISRAELI  AUTHORITIES  DEMOLISH  HOME  IN  JERUSALEM-AREA  VILLAGE  OF  BEIT  HANINA
Ma’an News Agency 
Nov. 2, 2016
Israeli bulldozers demolished a residence in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Beit Hanina on Wednesday morning, despite the owners saying that the demolition order had been postponed.
___Thalji Suleiman, the owner of the building said that an Israeli court had postponed the demolition order by two months on Tuesday, and that his family was attempting to obtain building licences from the Israeli municipality but were taken by surprise by the demolition.
___He added that his family tried to show the municipality crew the postponing order to get them to call off the demolition, to no avail.       More . . .   

• Gordon, Neve. “From Colonization To Separation: Exploring The Structure Of Israel’s Occupation.” Third World Quarterly 29.1 (2008): 25-44.   Full article.   

[. . . .] By the colonisation principle I mean a form of government whereby the coloniser attempts to manage the lives of the colonised inhabitants while exploiting the captured territory’s resources. Colonial powers do not conquer for the sake of imposing administrative rule on the indigenous population, but they end up managing the conquered inhabitants in order to facilitate the extraction of resources. After the 1967 war Israel assumed responsibility for the occupied residents, undertaking the administration of the major civil institutions through which modern societies are managed: education, health-care, welfare and the financial and legal systems. Simultaneously it began expropriating Palestinian land and water, the most important natural resources in the region. Two weeks after the war East Jerusalem, alongside 28 villages was annexed, and about three months later, in September 1967, the first Jewish settlement was built in the West Bank. . . .
___The colonisation principle thus incorporates some type of separation principle, which one might call the first separation principle. Levi Eshkol, Israel’s prime minister in 1967, clearly articulated this separation principle during a Labor Party meeting that took place three months after the war and in which he discussed the consequences of Israel’s military victory. He turned to Golda Meir, who was then the party’s general secretary, and said: ‘I understand . . . you covet the dowry, but not the bride’. The dowry was the land that Israel occupied in June 1967, and the bride was the Palestinian population.  Despite Israel’s aversion towards the bride, it considered the Palestinian body to be an extremely important object of management and control, and during the first two decades of occupation it attempted to rule the population in primarily non-violent ways.
[. . . .]
At a certain point during the first Intifada, Israel realised that the colonisation principle could no longer be used as the basic logic informing its control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and began looking for a new principle that would allow it to uphold the occupation. The desire to normalise the occupation and successfully annihilate the Palestinian national subject through a series of disciplinary technologies that were supported when need be by the sword proved to be unrealistic. It took a few years before a clear policy was shaped, but eventually the second separation principle was adopted. As opposed to the colonisation principle, which was rarely discussed, the separation principle has been talked about incessantly. The paradigmatic sentence describing this principle is ‘We are here, they are there’. The ‘we’ refers to Israelis, and the ‘they’ to Palestinians.
___If the first principle reflects the logic of the occupation, the second one ostensibly offers a solution to the occupation. The key word here is ostensibly. If truth be told, the second principle does not aim to solve the occupation, but rather to alter its logic. In other words, ‘We are here, they are there’ does not signify a withdrawal of Israeli power from the Occupied Territories (even though that is how it is understood among the Israeli public), but is used to blur the fact that Israel has been reorganising its power in the territories in order to continue its control over their resources. Thus the Oslo Accords, which were the direct result of the first intifada as well as of the changing political and economic circumstances in the international realm, signified the reorganization of power rather than its withdrawal, and should be understood as the continuation of the occupation by other means. As one commentator observed early on, Oslo was a form of ‘occupation by remote control’. [. . . .]

❷ FEAR  INVOLVES  JERUSALEM  VILLAGE  AS  ISRAEL  ISSUES  DEMOLISHING  ORDERS    
Alray-Palestinian Media Agency
Nov. 2, 2016
A state of fear involved the occupied Jerusalem village of Wallaga after the Israeli occupation authorities issued destruction notice against 20 Palestinian houses in the village.
___The concerns of Palestinians over the Israeli demolishing process in the village raised as the Israeli magistrate court in Jerusalem reviewed the petitions against the orders of demolishing seven Palestinian houses in the village.
___The court stated that it could not prevent the demolishing process because these houses are built without licenses. About 80 people live in these houses.      More . . .

❸ NETANYAHU’S  LOGIC  PREVAILS:  WESTERN  LEADERS  GROW  DEAF  TO  ISRAELI  ABUSES   
Palestine Chronicle  
Jonathan Cook
Nov. 2 2016
[. . . .]   Israel’s treatment of this supremely important Islamic holy site [Al-Aqsa Mosque] symbolizes for Palestinians their powerlessness, oppression and routine humiliation. Conversely, a sense of impunity has left Israel greedy for even more control over Palestinians . . .  European governments – fearful of upsetting Israel’s patron in Washington – have been trying to hold in check popular anger at a belligerent and unrepentant Israel.
___Illustrating that caution, UNESCO was forced last week to vote a second time on its resolution, this time removing the word “occupation” and, against normal practice, giving equal status to the occupier’s names for the sites under threat from its occupation.
[. . . .] Israel and its enablers have successfully engineered a hollowing out of official discourse about Israel to blunt even the mildest criticism.
___Gradually, as the UNESCO vote . . .  highlight[s], western powers are accepting Netanyahu’s doubly illogical premises: that criticizing the occupation is anti-Israel, and criticizing Israel is anti-Semitic.
___Incrementally, Western leaders are conceding that any criticism of Netanyahu’s policies – even as he tries to ensure the occupation becomes permanent – is off-limits.     More . . .