The Process of Land Theft in the West Bank

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by SuperCoolGuy

I think those words could just about wrap up any Israel/Palestine discussion.

Good job everyone. Go team.

If it's not too personal, would you mind if I asked your nationality?

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Just in time for this thread topic --

Israeli District Courts has rescinded a government decision to apply "Absentee Property" law to property in East Jerusalem which is owned by Palestinians who live elsewhere in the West Bank.
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/674191.html

So, the Israeli justice system is discussing, and ruling on, what constitutes "Land Theft" and illustrating (as they have done in the past and no doubt will do in the future) how the State of Israel should act towards Palestinian individuals that bring their complaints in front of the properly-constituted legal authorities.

Just sayin' ----

I think that's clearly the right decision. Good news.

[SuperCoolGuy]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

If it's not too personal, would you mind if I asked your nationality?

amerikana

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Just in time for this thread topic --

Israeli District Courts has rescinded a government decision to apply "Absentee Property" law to property in East Jerusalem which is owned by Palestinians who live elsewhere in the West Bank.
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/674191.html

So, the Israeli justice system is discussing, and ruling on, what constitutes "Land Theft" and illustrating (as they have done in the past and no doubt will do in the future) how the State of Israel should act towards Palestinian individuals that bring their complaints in front of the properly-constituted legal authorities.

Just sayin' ----

Fair enough, but, as the article in the OP points out, what comes out of the Courts is not consistent nor timely.

This ruling is by a minor court and is not binding on superior courts. I suspect that the final outcome is yet to be decided.

I also do not understand what this means.

Quote:

Okun states that the land could not be declared "absentee property," but he also put forth an in-principle ruling on the Absentee Property Law.

"This law was passed in a certain reality," Okun wrote in his ruling, "but following the Six day War the entire West Bank population passed under effective Israeli control. Applying this law under these conditions could create a limbo, in which land outside the rule of Israeli law can be annexed by Israel, while its owners are not defined as residents of an enemy state."

"This is a type of judicial stunt which does not reflect any reality," Okun said.

Monday's ruling constitutes a directive ruling for other district courts, but is not binding as a High Court of Justice ruling.

Is the judge making the ruling saying he is just doing it as a stunt?

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by SuperCoolGuy

amerikana

Me too.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

If it's not too personal, would you mind if I asked your nationality?

If its not too personal, why do you care?

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by The Fool

If its not too personal, why do you care?

Just friendly curiosity. Isn’t it normal to be curious about the new kid on the block?

[David Swidler]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

This ruling is by a minor court and is not binding on superior courts. I suspect that the final outcome is yet to be decided.

District court is one level below the Supreme Court in Israel. While the cases in its jurisdiction are naturally limited by geography, the precedents it sets are valid throughout the country.

Quote:

Is the judge making the ruling saying he is just doing it as a stunt?

I think it refers to the initial Absentee Property Law and the court's reasons for finding it lacking.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by The Fool

If its not too personal, why do you care?

What's your favourite colour, Fool?

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by David Swidler

District court is one level below the Supreme Court in Israel. While the cases in its jurisdiction are naturally limited by geography, the precedents it sets are valid throughout the country.



I think it refers to the initial Absentee Property Law and the court's reasons for finding it lacking.

If this is correct, then could this be a legal precedent, for the unresolved concept of people under rule of Israel, yet not citizens of Israel or any other state, yet owners of property in Israel. One more issue that Israel needs to settle once and for all if real progress towards peace is to continue.

Once again, time will tell. I suspect that, like many other issues that are waiting to be resolved, I will be pushing up daises before the final answer is known.

[webfusion]

I find it instructive that the Palestinians have no such court system at all which the jews can turn to... I wonder what will happen in the future when a Jewish driver is stopped for a minor traffic infringement by a Palestinian Police patrol?

And of course, the Palestinians apply the Jordanian Laws regarding ownership of land by jews -- it is simply not allowed.
Lives of Palestinians are threatened if they should sell land to jews...

• In the High Court petition (against IDF demolition of the homes there), which will be submitted later Wednesday, Amona settlers will list for the first time the details of the land purchase at the outpost, a process which has not yet been officially completed.
  http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/674691.html
  The petitioners intend to ask the court to impose a gag order on these details, to protect the lives of the people involved in the sale.

Let us also recall that in Hebron, the "theft" was not theft at all, but rather an abrupt termination of an ongoing lease made to the Palestinians of the land in question. The Hebron municipality had been given that lease by Israel, but it was broken (and a High Court case arose from this) when jews living nearby got quite upset because a baby girl was murdered by a Palestinian sniper (Shalevet Pass):
Palestinian buildings in the market were occupied by Jewish settlers three years ago to protest the murder of an Israeli toddler in the city.
(from that same article linked above)

As David says, you have to know that background and the intricate legal details, before you start with the all-purpose "Land Theft" argument.

[Skeptic]

This ruling is by a minor court and is not binding on superior courts. I suspect that the final outcome is yet to be decided...

As usual for AUP, whenever israel does right (according to his views, at least), he will find something--anything--to try and minimize what right was done, and to insinuate it is some sort of individual, unimportant action in a sea of injustice.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

This ruling is by a minor court and is not binding on superior courts. I suspect that the final outcome is yet to be decided...

As usual for AUP, whenever israel does right (according to his views, at least), he will find something--anything--to try and minimize what right was done, and to insinuate it is some sort of individual, unimportant action in a sea of injustice.

No, I said, I think if this is binding, it could be an important and vital step towards a peaceful resolution. The superior court will still have to have a say on it, and there is no indication it will concur. Any indication it will?

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

What's your favourite colour, Fool?

Green..

Are you, or have you ever been a member of the communist party?

[webfusion]

TF, have you ever really acted in a TV sitcom with Richard Dawson?

[Skeptic]

No, I said, I think if this is binding, it could be an important and vital step towards a peaceful resolution. The superior court will still have to have a say on it, and there is no indication it will concur. Any indication it will?

Except for the fact that the supreme court concurs with the great majority of decisions made by lower courts, except if it finds something deeply wrong with them, which means there is a 90%+ chance at least it will concur?

No, except for that, I have no further indication. But, hey, insinuation is so cool, isn't it?

Incidentally, speaking of land, a few simple questions which you never answer, since they expose the emptiness of your view:

1). The Palestinians made it a capital offense to sell land to jews. Is this, too, an issue that somebody needs to "resolve" before "peace can be achieved"? Or is it no obstacle to peace--indeed, a requirement for it--that the Palestinian state will be officially judenrein, or, as this ethnic cleansing is euphemistically called, "without illegal settlements"?

2). What kind of peace, exactly, do you think can be made with someone who consider your very presence good enough reason to kill the "traitor" who dared to sell you a house?

3). Should israel, in the interest of peace and equality, declare that any jew who sells an apartment to an Arab is a traitor and should be executed?

4). What would your reaction be if israel did that?

Yeah yeah yeah--"the occupation". But what is the "occupation"? It is the occupation of "Arab land" by israel in 1967. Now, let us consider this "Arab land" argument.

You keep making comparisons between the expelling of the Arabs in 1948 and the expelling of the settlers now. But the real comparison is between the expelling of Arabs in 1948 and the expelling of jews in 1948.

Ignoring the causes for the moment, both sides engaged in ethnic cleansing. If the ethnic cleansing of all jews from the west bank in 1948--where they lived for centuries--makes it Arab land where jews are occupiers and are not allowed to live, does the cleansing of Arabs from areas in israel in 1948 makes it holy jewish land where Arabs are occupiers and are not allowed to live? Does this means israeli Arabs are illegal settlers?

On your view, simply put, the fact that the Arabs succeeded in making the west bank and Gaza judenrein in 1948 is the justification for them calling the jews who later returned there "occupiers" and expelling them. So, by the same logic, shouldn't the fact that Arabs were expelled in 1948 good reason to expell them again now for "occupying jewish land"? What would you think of israel if it did that?

(Though, just between you and me, if israel's concern was what you think about it, it might as well make it a requirement to eat the flesh of Arab babies in every meal eaten by a jew in the country--you could hardly think any worse of it then than you do now.)

Your view is based on a deep, and obvious, antisemitic assumption: that when a jew is expelled--no matter under what circumstances--the land automatically becomes the property of the person who expelled him. But when a jew expells someone--no matter under what circumstances--the land forever remains the property of the person the jew expelled.

I am not arguing here, of course, for expulsion of anybody from anywhere. Nor am I making a moral judgement here about the expulsions themselves. That is for another discussion. I am merely showing that your entire "occuption" and "Arab land" mantra is based on a deeply biased and, in particular, anti-jewish idea: that, first, no land really belongs to the jews as long as anybody objects to this; and, second, that taking land from jews by force should be rewarded.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

No, I said, I think if this is binding, it could be an important and vital step towards a peaceful resolution. The superior court will still have to have a say on it, and there is no indication it will concur. Any indication it will?

Except for the fact that the supreme court concurs with the great majority of decisions made by lower courts, except if it finds something deeply wrong with them, which means there is a 90%+ chance at least it will concur?

No, except for that, I have no further indication. But, hey, insinuation is so cool, isn't it?

I am not insinuating anything when I say this, Skeptic, I really do think you are a despicable creep.

You go on ignore. I am sick of your blatant misrepresentations and lies.

[Freakshow]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/673047.html

Once again, it is worth asking, just how did the Israel/Palstine situation get to where it is now?

Why is it worth asking? I don't really see it as such. Maybe you can fill me in.

[a_unique_person]

You try to deal with a disease by finding out how it happened. If there is an underlying cause that is ignored, then treating the symptoms is often a just palliative.

[Skeptic]

I am not insinuating anything when I say this, Skeptic, I really do think you are a despicable creep.

Well, of course you do.

Can't answer anything I said, can you?

So of course you whine it's all "misinterpretation" and "deliberate falsification". But the truth--the rather obvious, simple truth--is that you never said a word against the expulsion of jews in 1948 (well, except for justifying it by calling the 1948 Arab war to destroy israel a legitimate action against "zionism"), and constantly wailed against the expulsion of Arabs.

Which shows us what you really think: expelling jews is no big deal, let alone something that requires current action.

You go on ignore.

I'm heartbroken.

You try to deal with a disease by finding out how it happened. If there is an underlying cause that is ignored...

Yes, yes, of course, but you only do this seemingly "rational investigation" when you think you have a fair chance of "discovering", surprise surprise, that that "underlying cause" is some evil jewish / American / Republican action (preferably all three, in which case you can have an orgasm screaming about the evil "neocons".) You never, for example, consider the "undelying cause" to be Islamic fanaticism, or Arab dictatorial politics, or anything that reflects badly on the terrorists.

The "root cause" for you is merely an excuse to make sure the jews/ Americans / Republicans are at fault whatever happens: when the jews / Americans / Republicans do something that seems despicable, you don't go looking for "root causes", you just say they did wrong. But when the Palestinians / Muslims / Islamists do something that seems despicable, you look and look for "root causes" until you find that the "root cause" of their action was something the jews / Americans / Republicans did wrong.

[Freakshow]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

You try to deal with a disease by finding out how it happened. If there is an underlying cause that is ignored, then treating the symptoms is often a just palliative.

Not always. Cancer is a good example. We don't know exactly why people get cancer. There are risk factors, certainly. But we don't know the true core reason it happens. But it can still be treated, often successfully (ask Lance Armstrong) with chemo, radiation, and surgery. Lance didn't sit around and get worse and worse, thinking "I'm just gonna let this disease tear my body apart while they keep looking for the underlying cause of cancer." I certainly wouldn't, if I was the one sick.

I see your point, and it has some validity. But I question a couple of things.

• Is there a specific root cause that can be addressed for hatred and violence? For 4000 years of recorded human history, we haven't done a good job so far. Perhaps, while there are risk factors, there IS no root cause other than hatred and violence being a part of human nature.
• I think it is not good to use the "root cause" argument to lobby for doing nothing, while pizza parlors are blown up, for the deliberate purpose of killing civilians. I don't know if you are advocating the "do nothing in response" approach or not. I am not suggesting you are, so please don't interpret the statement that way. It was just a point referring to the general overall issue.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by webfusion

I find it instructive that the Palestinians have no such court system at all which the jews can turn to... I wonder what will happen in the future when a Jewish driver is stopped for a minor traffic infringement by a Palestinian Police patrol?

And of course, the Palestinians apply the Jordanian Laws regarding ownership of land by jews -- it is simply not allowed.
Lives of Palestinians are threatened if they should sell land to jews...

• In the High Court petition (against IDF demolition of the homes there), which will be submitted later Wednesday, Amona settlers will list for the first time the details of the land purchase at the outpost, a process which has not yet been officially completed.
  http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/674691.html
  The petitioners intend to ask the court to impose a gag order on these details, to protect the lives of the people involved in the sale.

Let us also recall that in Hebron, the "theft" was not theft at all, but rather an abrupt termination of an ongoing lease made to the Palestinians of the land in question. The Hebron municipality had been given that lease by Israel, but it was broken (and a High Court case arose from this) when jews living nearby got quite upset because a baby girl was murdered by a Palestinian sniper (Shalevet Pass):
Palestinian buildings in the market were occupied by Jewish settlers three years ago to protest the murder of an Israeli toddler in the city.
(from that same article linked above)

As David says, you have to know that background and the intricate legal details, before you start with the all-purpose "Land Theft" argument.

Hang on, the land authority set up to purchase land for Israel was on the basis that no land was to be sold to non Jews. It's one more tit for tat biffo.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Freakshow

Not always. Cancer is a good example. We don't know exactly why people get cancer. There are risk factors, certainly. But we don't know the true core reason it happens. But it can still be treated, often successfully (ask Lance Armstrong) with chemo, radiation, and surgery. Lance didn't sit around and get worse and worse, thinking "I'm just gonna let this disease tear my body apart while they keep looking for the underlying cause of cancer." I certainly wouldn't, if I was the one sick.

I see your point, and it has some validity. But I question a couple of things.

• Is there a specific root cause that can be addressed for hatred and violence? For 4000 years of recorded human history, we haven't done a good job so far. Perhaps, while there are risk factors, there IS no root cause other than hatred and violence being a part of human nature.
• I think it is not good to use the "root cause" argument to lobby for doing nothing, while pizza parlors are blown up, for the deliberate purpose of killing civilians. I don't know if you are advocating the "do nothing in response" approach or not. I am not suggesting you are, so please don't interpret the statement that way. It was just a point referring to the general overall issue.

Fear of others who are not a part of our group, tribe or other collective noun that we think describes us is an unfortunate human trait. It can be either encouraged, or understood and managed.

I am not averse to people asking me what I think at all, just people deciding what I think and attacking me on that basis.

When you get a highly unusual situation like the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Checkpoints and barbed wire are everywhere. What will be the outcome of such a situation?

The Palestinian people are stateless in a society that is giving all the appearances of breaking down into chaos and lawlessness. They don't belong to a sovereign nation. I don't think you are going to get a Geneva Convention type response. That does not make it right, that just makes it what is happening. Once again, you have an inherently stable situation like this, but you expect a stable, rational response?

If you want a rational, civil and legal basis to deal with in regards to them, they will need their own nation, rule of law, property titles respected, the knowledge that they rule their own streets, national soveriegnty.
Given the state they are in now, that may not even happen for many years.

Oslo was the best chance, Palestinians were getting wealthier, which is what is needed. A stable State in which people see a future. When people have a future and something to protect for their children, that is when they behave reasonably rationally. That is going to take years to achieve, especially if Hamas takes a loony loop the way of the Taliban, for example.

You see people here celebrating the troubles of Palestinians, "These people want a state". That is only celebrating the certainty of more problems for Israelis.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Hang on, the land authority set up to purchase land for Israel was on the basis that no land was to be sold to non Jews. It's one more tit for tat biffo.

That characterization is so outrageously dishonest, and you’ve been corrected on this so many times…

It wasn't to be sold again period. It was to be managed according to a utopian socialist model where nobody owned land as individuals, but where individuals could lease land on long-term lease agreements. The idea was at the end of their lease, they could either renew, or allow the land to go back to the collective where it became available to be leased by someone else. The catch being that if that person had improved the land, then because it was more valuable, the lease price would go up.

So the land once bought wasn’t to be sold at all, but it was to be leased. Today, that same agency leases land to any Israeli regardless of race or religion.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

...I am not averse to people asking me what I think at all, just people deciding what I think and attacking me on that basis.

<snip>

You see people here celebrating the troubles of Palestinians, "These people want a state". That is only celebrating the certainty of more problems for Israelis.

These two paragraphs were widely separated in your post. I think that's too bad, because they go very well together.

I don't know of anyone here who celebrates the troubles of Palestinians, who do you think they are?

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I don't know of anyone here who celebrates the troubles of Palestinians, who do you think they are?

there is quite a few of them here....

www.littlegreenfootballs.com

there are possibly even people here who frequent that site and may even promote it on this forum, reposting articles and advertising the url in thier sig....

but maybe I'm mistaken....

[a_unique_person]

Or ridicule them when they drown.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by The Fool

there is quite a few of them here....

www.littlegreenfootballs.com

So you agree that nobody here at JREF celebrates the troubles of Palestinians?

Originally Posted by The Fool

there are possibly even people here who frequent that site and may even promote it on this forum, reposting articles and advertising the url in thier sig....

but maybe I'm mistaken....

Just as promoting JREF somewhere else doesn't indicate that I'm promoting your views, promoting LGF in my signature does not indicate my endorsement of any individual poster in their comments section.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Or ridicule them when they drown.

Explain, please?

[Freakshow]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Fear of others who are not a part of our group, tribe or other collective noun that we think describes us is an unfortunate human trait. It can be either encouraged, or understood and managed.

We definately agree there. It is a human trait, and it can be managed. But not necessarily totally controlled and repressed.

The issue with Israel and the arab world may be so deeply entrenched now that not much can be done about it. Correcting some things might not make the situation worse, but I am not very hopeful that it will make things better, too. The years of Arafat's corruption and the recent election victory of Hamas makes me have even less hope.

It may sound defeatist to state that I have little hope anything can improve at this point, regardless of what actions the Israeli's take. But, I believe that I am unfortunately simply being realistic.

I know that you are very interested in environmental issues, and are familiar with some saying that we are approaching a "tipping point" in the environment. I worry that we are already past the tipping point for the middle-east situation. I hope I am wrong.

[a_unique_person]

I have already said I have given up hoping long ago. But I still hope. Just as Sharon learned his lesson, maybe Hamas will too. As he said, the situation looks completely different when you are in power.