IDF: Settlement on Hebron base is 'in line with the army's needs'

[Violet_Crumble]

A settler community on a military base in the West Bank city of Hebron is "in line with the army's needs," the Israel Defense Forces contends.

The IDF says the settlers are living on the Plugat Hamitkanim base temporarily, but the community has been there for 16 years.

The base is next to Beit Hadassah and is used by the infantry company that defends the region, as well as several settler families who live in mobile homes.

Peace Now has complained to GOC Central Command Yair Naveh, saying that civilians should not be allowed to live on an IDF base and that there is no justification for them to do so.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/840799.html

[bemildred]

1. A more explicit expression of the "needs" being served would be useful.

This impersonal and vague expression doesn't really clarify the situation.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. I think the vagueness was on purpose...

A clarification of what's meant by it would help a lot, imo...

Anyway, I'm going back to scratching my head wondering what the hell post#2 and anything after it had to do with the OP :)

[Taxloss]

25. Look on the bright side, it's keeping your thread kicked. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

26. I've always preferred quality over quantity n/t

[bemildred]

32. I think it's a sort of cliche.

A pat, meaningless phrase intended to dismiss criticism. It is difficult to see any military purpose in allowing these weasels free rent and 24-hour protection. That is why asking what the specific purposes(s) of this gift to the settlers were seems relevant.

[Solo_in_MD]

2. Per another souce, Peace Now is claiming that Jews need special permission to buy land from Arabs

[breakaleg]

3. Can Arabs purchase land from Jews inside Israel?

[Solo_in_MD]

4. Yes, in fact Jordan has been subsidizing purchases in Old Jerusalem to help maintain its Arab flavor

[breakaleg]

5. Isn't that East Jerusalem which is NOT part of Israel anyway?

[Solo_in_MD]

6. Irrelavent...its private party sales. In Israel, its legal for an Arab and/or musim to by land,

In many Arab nations Jews can not buy land in private party transaction and the punishment for selling to a Jew is death.

[breakaleg]

7. So, Israel confiscates land, calls it 'state land' enacts laws making it legal and that's ok.

After all, it's a Jewish state. And they make it seem all pretty. But they expect more of their neighbors?

One difference between the two scenarios in Israel and the occupied territories is that when Jews own land inside the occupied territories, they expect that it be then called "Israel" and they want the maps redrawn. When Arabs own land inside Israel, they just want it to be theirs.

[Solo_in_MD]

8. Not sure how that applies...

My observation is:
In Israel (and Israeli controlled territory) anyone can sell land to anyone.
In surronding countries Jews can not own land and its a captial crime to sell any to them

Jordan it trying to insure that privately owned property in Old Jerusalem says in Arab hands by subsidizing its purchase while not allowing Jews to buy land in Jordan.

[breakaleg]

9. I'm just saying that considering the policies of Israel that are meant to

hold Jews higher than their other citizens, I don't see the big deal about Palestinians not wanting to sell land to Jews in what's left of the occupied territories, after Israel has already stolen much of it. It's really a ridiculous thing to quibble over.

[Solo_in_MD]

10. Capital punishment for selling private property is not " a ridiculous thing to quibble over"

Neither is the denial of property rights in UN member nations

[breakaleg]

11. Does that include Israel? Aren't Arabs denied their property rights there?

[Solo_in_MD]

12. No, Arabs can buy private land without restriction there.

Here is the Jordanian law that is used in the West bank by the PA...pretty heinous stuff and a direct violation of the Oslo accords




In 1973, under the direct instructions of King Hussein, the government of Jordan passed the Law for Preventing the Sale of Immoveable Property to the Enemy — with the "enemy" defined in Article 2 as:

... any man or judicial body of Israeli citizenship living in Israel or acting on its behalf.

Under Article 4 of this law any Jordanian citizen who sold land in Jordan or the West Bank to the "enemy" faced the death penalty and forfeiture of all his property — moveable and immoveable — to the state:

(A) The sale of immoveable property against the provisions of this law constitutes a crime against state security and well being, punishable by death, and the confiscation of all the culprit's immoveable and moveable possessions.
(B) If the crime is committed by a judicial body the punishment will be exacted from the persons who committed the crimes on behalf of this judicial body, and the judicial body will have its registration cancelled.

In addition, under Article 3 the sale of land to any alien (ie., someone who is either non- Jordanian or non-Arab) without permission from the Council of Ministers became a security offense, again punishable by death.

According to PA Attorney General Khaled Al-Qidreh, 172 people had been sentenced to death under this law (Palestine Report, 6 June 1997). Amnesty International reported that as of 1988 many of the convictions were in absentia and there had been no executions (Jordan: Human Rights Protections After the State of Emergency, Amnesty International, 1990).

However, in a recent press conference PA Justice Minister Meddein stated that 10 violators of the law had been executed (Los Angeles Times, 1 June 1997).

[Tom Joad]

17. Most of the land is Not Private.

[breakaleg]

18. Obviously, I don't support the 'punishable by death' part. But the fact

remains that Israel deliberately made all the land that wasn't privately owned state land so it could always remain in Jewish hands and not be sold to Arabs. That is no different than enacting a law stating you can't sell to Jews.

As I said, one side is better at their deception and managed to make the language of their laws a little prettier. The result is the same.

[Taxloss]

24. So you want privatisation of land owned by Israel? n/t

[Shaktimaan]

33. Got anything to back that up?

Or are you just assuming?

Arabs and Israelis follow the same rules in Israel. Yes, the government owns most of the land, except for some people that owned land prior to '48, mostly Arabs, who retained ownership.

People's houses and businesses and etc., though, are all on land owned by the government. Instead of "buying" the land you have to get some kind of weird long-term lease thing. So while you are technically right, Arabs can not buy land in Israel, you are being disingenuous because Jews can't buy land either. No one can.

And the result is NOT the same. Israeli Arabs have all the same rights in regard to buying/leasing/whatever property as their Jewish neighbors. Palestine's law sets different rules for Jews as it does for Arabs. You are focusing on a quirk of Israeli real estate law (that basically is just a semantic difference anyway) and trying to build a case for anti-arab discrimination around it.

Back it up, baby.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. You forgot to include the link to CAMERA...

http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/backg/land-pa.html (scroll down to #6)


When copying stuff directly from another site, it's polite to give credit to the site yr copying it from for a few reasons. One reason is so people reading yr post know that you haven't written it yrself, and a second important reason is because people reading yr post have the right to know whether the information is coming from a credible and non-partisan source or a source that has a very clear agenda....

Seeing the hijacking of this thread seems to have been very successful, I'll just remind you that in other threads that have had nothing to do with the topic this thread was hijacked with, you've failed to answer questions I've asked you about claims you've made...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x167344#167345

'Have to wonder when the UN is going to investigate the complete denial of rights to Jews in Palestinian held territory, including not being allowed to own property and being murdered for being suspected of being a Jew.

Note I did not say Israeli, I said Jew.'

and

'I was refering to Gaza where if you sell land to a Jew you are to be killed
as well as the new owner and the land confiscated.'

I asked you for any sort of credible evidence from a source that wasn't a rabid pro-Israel site that this has happened and a link to any law that says Jews buying land (note, I did not say Israeli, I said Jew) is murdered for being suspected of being a Jew. So far through a trail of threads, you haven't supplied the evidence to back up yr claims...

[Englander]

31. Don't forget the link to CAMERA!

:)

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=2&x_outlet=2&x_article=39

[Shaktimaan]

13. which Arabs?

Do you mean Arab Israeli citizens? How are they denied property rights in Israel? Israel has laws preventing discrimination in all the usual areas, one specifically being real estate.

One difference between the two scenarios in Israel and the occupied territories is that when Jews own land inside the occupied territories, they expect that it be then called "Israel" and they want the maps redrawn. When Arabs own land inside Israel, they just want it to be theirs.

Not exactly. When Jordan captured land in the West Bank and Jerusalem all of the Jews living there were expelled to Israel or killed. (Remember, the Jewish quarter is in east Jerusalem.) When Israel took EJ back, the Arabs were not expelled. Nor were they expelled from the West Bank into Jordan as Jordan did to WB Jews beforehand. But there were Jews living in all of these areas. So why is it considered stolen? Why does Israel have less right to any of the land than the Palestinians? (The Palestinians DID already get most of the land as Jordan.) And there are no maps saying where the border between WB and Israel is. That's the whole point. Jordan insisted on not having a defined border.

I don't see the big deal about Palestinians not wanting to sell land to Jews in what's left of the occupied territories, after Israel has already stolen much of it.

You're right. It's not the same. When Israel buys land it becomes a de-facto settlement/Israel's land whereas Arab purchases in Israel means nothing of that sort. When one Palestinian sells his land to an Israeli, all of Palestine loses the land. (Not really, because it will likely be negotiated back, but still... it's the principle.)

Here's the difference though. An Israeli Arab CAN buy land in Israel. Israeli Arabs EXIST! Jews in Arab lands don't really exist anymore. (Remember, thrown out or killed.) So there is a difference, but it is based on the knowledge that Jews can not live in Palestine because of what would happen. So fault for this policy does not lie solely with Israel.

[breakaleg]

19. The ones who were forced out of their homes. The ones who own titles to land

both inside Israel proper and those pesky settlements that are NOT inside Israel. The charge "denial of property rights in UN member nations". I'm just pointing out that Israel is guilty of the same.

[Shaktimaan]

20. do you mean back in 48-49?

[breakaleg]

21. yes.

[Shaktimaan]

34. Most of that land was owned by the government.

That's why I was asking. Few Palestinians actually owned the land in dispute. They may have lived on it and farmed it, but (I forget the exact percentage) very few owned land outright. That is why Israel says they can have settlements in the west bank. Except for a few cases they (supposedly) only used land that was government owned. Palestinian owned land was either bought, occasionally confiscated or left alone. Israel's policy has been to compensate individual property owners who lost land during the Nakba.

B'tselem just came out with a report that says that 60% of the WB land is actually owned by private Palestinian citizens. So, we'll see what happens with that. I'm sceptical of both party's claims in this case.

At any rate, it's not easy to figure out. There have been 4-5 governments in charge there in the past 100 years, which saw huge migrations of people, both willing and forced. How do you measure the claims of the ethnic groups as a whole versus individual property rights. If an Arab owned a house does that mean the house should go to the Palestinians? If someone was only renting before being expelled does thaqt mean he doesn't have the same rights to return as someone who owned a house? (Obviously that's absurd, but this problem often gets boiled down to who owned what, and when.) How does one figure this mess out?

Basically, I never got how anyone could just say definitively that this land belongs "all to him" or "all to that group", know what I mean? International law is far from clear on matters like this, (no matter what anyone tells you, international law is nothing if not insanely complex and often contradictory.) Sure, the whole UN (sans USA) thinks all of the territories belong to Palestine, including east Jerusalem. But do you really consider the UN to be an impartial judge in this matter? They are probably more guilty than anyone of playing politics with this issue.

[breakaleg]

36. Compared to Israel? Yes, I consider the UN to be impartial. You can't seriously take Israel's word

that the land is theirs can you? If you believe that because Israel claims the land was not privately owned, and therefor they have a right to claim it even though the international community clearly says it should go to the Palestinians, then I can't be bothered to discuss this. Talk about self serving interests.

Look at Israel's history. They do what they want and then justify it afterwards with one excuse after another.

The fact is, if any piece of land is privately owned, then they have no right to it. This has nothing to do with the refugee issue. This sub-thread was about privately owned land.

[Shaktimaan]

37. It's not about anyone's word over anyone else's.

Not in any real terms anyway. As far as the Nakba goes, no one is really in disagreement as to ownership of the land. No one has to just trust Israel, there are plenty of documented real estate transactions and census information from the time of British administration over Palestine. We definitively KNOW who owned what land then and how much was owned by the government.

The west bank is more complicated but there is no question that many of the settlements are on land that was purchased in the early 20th century by the JNF and developed by Jewish settlers until their expulsion in 1948. This isn't 5th grade. It's not their word against ours. Some of the land is disputed, but if we are just talking about straight ownership, most of the land is documented.

And if I were you I would reconsider the impartiality of the UN. The UN is not a bastion of justice where individual nation's interests get checked at the door and everyone looks to the common good as their cheif motive. There are 50-60 Arab and Islamic nations that always vote as a block when it comes to censuring Israel or putting forth motions to discredit or sanction her. I disagree that we should "go along" with whatever the international community decides unless their decision is just and fair. The idea of China voting to criticize Israel for an illegal occupation or human rights abuses is nearly Kafkaesque in its absurdity. Israel's role in the UN is that of a scapegoat. She is not afforded the same rights as other nations at the UN, she is not given any opportunity to work in committees or to represent herself on the UNSC as every other nation is. When it comes to Israel, the UN is a parody of what it was supposed to be.

The fact is, if any piece of land is privately owned, then they have no right to it.

<snip>

therefor they have a right to claim it even though the international community clearly says it should go to the Palestinians

So, if the land is owned by a Palestinian then Israel has no right to it? Yet, if the land is owned by an Israeli, then Israel still has no right to it because the UN says so?

Look at Israel's history. They do what they want and then justify it afterwards with one excuse after another.

:rofl:

[breakaleg]

38. You are confusing ownership of the land, and the state in which the land falls.

So, if an American bought a house in Canada, does that house then become part of the US? No. But Israel would like that to be the case. They buy a piece of land in the West Bank, and then take that land, roads leading up to it and a host of other land to encompass that one piece as a part of the state of Israel. Get a grip.

[Shaktimaan]

39. I have a grip.

Not so sure about you though.

Palestine is not a state. Its borders are to be determined through negotiations with Israel at some point. But right now, it is de jure land. Exactly what land belongs to which state has not been determined yet. There is no land dispute between Canada and America and they are both established states.

You can't just gloss over the fact that Palestine is NOT a state yet.

It is a state to be... possibly. This whole idea of having an independant state of Palestine in the WB is pretty much brand new. Sure, there was the rejected UN partition plan from 48. (Which was never put into effect for even a minute.) Then nothing about it until the late 80's.

Jews purchased some of this WB land before anyone had an inkling of an idea that there should be a state called Palestine there. The land was purchased before the identity of Palestinian even existed.

And now you say that all of the disputed land, east Jerusalem even, belongs to the Palestinians. OK. But WHY? Jews lived in this land just as Aarabs did. The land was always shared between the two ethnic groups. Why do the Jewish people have less of a claim to the land now than the Arabs?

[breakaleg]

40. You are spewing Israel's POV as if it's fact. It isn't.

I believe the UN says land cannot be won by war. And it also stated that Israel cannot move it's population into territory it occupies.

When I hear the word "disputed territories" in place of occupied territories I usually tune out right away. The only people who dispute them is Israel. And that self serving pov doesn't count for a lot.

[Shaktimaan]

41. Spewing? Nice one.

I'm not stating anything as "fact." My point is that the west bank and the borders of the future state of Palestine are rooted in conjecture at this point. There are no "facts" that are anything beyond "opinion." And there is no single opinion on land rights that Palestinians have vs. Israelis. There is a fairly broad range of individual opinions as well as conflicting laws, court opinions and treaties relating to the matter.

I'm sure you realize that the agreement hashed out by the American and British envoys to the UN (who actually negotiated/drafted the resolution you cited) was that Israel is NOT required to relinquish control of ALL the territory outside of the 67 borders. (So it is not an opinion held JUST by Israel, as you seemed to think.) In fact, it was a big sticking point in the negotiations and as a result of the British/American refusal to insert the qualifier "all" in the text, the Arab contingent actually voted against the resolution.

Now, to be clear, I am not arguing that Israel has the right to take whatever land they want. Just that the whole of the land under discussion can not be automatically declared as belonging solely to the Palestinians. Feel free to disagree. But back it up. Don't just write it off as irrelevant because you find it serves Israeli interests.

Look at it this way. Land can not be won in war, right? So when Jordan overtook areas of Jewish occupancy in '49 Palestine, expelling the rightful owners, they were then illegally occupying the land (an opinion shared by the entire world excepting England.) So when Israel subsequently drove Jordan off of the land that it had been occupying, land that was/is owned by the JNF, they were not "winning" the land nor "occupying" it. They were driving a foreign occupier from THEIR land and resettling there. Obviously this argument doesn't extend to most of the WB. But it clearly does to some specific areas.

Another murky area is east Jerusalem. Now, you clearly think that EJ should become part of Palestine. Even though Jerusalem was a Jewish city from way before the first war, even though it was never planned that Jerusalem become part of Palestine and even though it would mean the Israelis relinquishing control of the Jewish quarter in the holiest city in Judaism (by far.) Even the site of the Temple, (where Al Aqsa now stands,) should be considered irrefutably Palestinian, despite it being the holiest place on earth under Judaism, the direction of which we face during prayers and promise to return to every year in the well-known Passover refrain, "Next year, in Jerusalem." Forgive me but I just don't see how that makes any sense. It would be like asking Muslims to trade in Mecca.

Surely some of the Arab neighborhoods could be part of Palestine, Jerusalem could still be the capital. The Waqf could retain administrative control of Al Aqsa. Clinton offered this plan to Arafat in 2000, in fact. But Arafat was steadfast in his refusal to compromise on his desire for full Palestinian autonomy over the old city. And I just don't see how anyone thinks of this as an equitable compromise.

But maybe you can clarify it. Why do you think the old city and East Jerusalem should be automatically considered Palestinian?

[Tom Joad]

16. Can an Arab Palestinian buy land from the Jewish National fund?

[Taxloss]

22. Not if it's not for sale to anyone. n/t

[oberliner]

23. Can a Jewish Israeli buy land from the Islamic Waqf?

[Shaktimaan]

35. For that matter,

can a Jewish Israeli buy land from the JNF?

Nope.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. That's got nothing to do with the OP...

...which is about settlers living on an IDF base for years on end, which makes yr claim totally irrelevant...

[cali]

27. Wait a minute.

That's completely irrelevant. The point is that allowing Settlers to live and buy land in the OT is abusive to the Palestinians because of the power disparity and the nature of Occupation.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. I'm safe in guessing that source was Arutz Sheva?

I sometimes like having a read of what the extremist hatemongers have to say (you are aware that Arutz Sheva is a real stinky source, right?), and I read an article where something very similar to what you'd said was written:

'The extreme-left group Peace Now has been pressuring Peretz to expel the Jewish families, claiming that Jews should need special government permission to buy Arab houses. The group has made no similar request requiring special permission for Arabs to buy Jewish homes.'

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/121909

So, seeing as how both you and Arutz Sheva were claiming that Peace Now had said that Jews should need special permission to buy land from Arabs, I figured rather than take yr word and that of a source that is extremist, I'd do the getting it from the horse's mouth and see what Peace Now had to say. Not surprisingly, what they said was very different, one because they didn't say anything about Jews, and secondly because they were pointing out that there's a military law in the West Bank that forbids Israelis from buying land in densely built up areas without the permission of the Defence Minister, and that breaking that law can be punished by a 5-year jail term....

Here's the letter from Peace Now to the Defence Minister:

Re: My Client, the Settlement Watch – Peace Now, Dror Etkes and Hagit Ofran
Last night’s invasion by settlers in Hebron

Dear Sir/Madam,

1. My clients, the “Peace Now” movement, Dror Etkes and Hagit Ofran have empowered me to turn to you regarding the above subject.
2. Yesterday evening, hundreds of settlers invaded a building under construction adjacent to the road linking the settlement of Kiryat ‘Arba and the Cave of Machpela.
3. According to the media, the army, at this time, is avoiding evacuating them on the pretext that judicial verifications are being carried out regarding the claim that the building was purchased by the settlers, despite the fact that the Palestinian owner submitted a complaint with the Hebron Police Station, denying having sold the property.
4. As well you know, real estate sales transactions to Israelis and Israeli corporations on the West Bank in crowded Palestinian urban areas require the approval of the Minister of Defense and the Civil Administration, and without such approval, no transaction can be valid.
5. Para. 2 of the Injunction regarding land transactions (Judea and Samaria) (no. 25) 5727-1976 states as follows:
“No person, whether himself or through someone else, whether directly or indirectly, shall carry out a transaction regarding land unless it is authorized by the competent authorities.”
6. Para. 3 of the abovementioned Injunction states that any transaction carried out without the approval of the competent authorities shall be considered invalid.
7. Israeli Cabinet Ruling no. 1077 authorized the Ministers’ Defense Committee to adopt resolutions regarding the above paragraphs and in the matter of this issue, Ministers’ Committee Resolution 9/b of 1979 (6.11.79) states, that the competent authority for approving a purchase in a local population center is the Minister of Defense.
8. There is no doubt that the structure in question is located in an urban area and in any case, it is in an area that is densely populated by Palestinians, and even if this were not the case, approval would be required from the Head of the Civil Administration.
9. In addition: Para. 3a of said Injunction no. 25 states that carrying out a transaction without approval from the competent authority constitutes a criminal offense subject to five years’ imprisonment.
10. In view of the above, I should like to request that you inform me without delay:
A. Did the Minister of Defense and/or the Head of the Civil Administration approve the transaction as claimed by the encroachers in the building which is the subject of this letter?
B. Should approval not have been given, why are you are you refraining from announcing that the legal verifications revealed that the building was not acquired by legal means – which will make it possible to evacuate the intruders? It should be pointed out that without such an approval, there is no reason to delay evacuating the intruders, regardless of the “legitimacy” of the acquisition.
C. Do you intend to open a criminal investigation on suspicion that a crime has been committed on the basis of the above Injunction 25?
11. In view of the urgency of the matter and because the clock is ticking re the “fresh invasion”, I would appreciate a rapid response, if possible today, in order to be able to advise my client regarding the legal options open to them.

Sincerely,

Michael Sfard, Adv.

http://www.peacenow.org.il/data/SIP_STORAGE/files/4/2854.doc

[Englander]

30. That "another source" =Arutz Sheva.

The extreme-left group Peace Now has been pressuring Peretz to expel the Jewish families, claiming that Jews should need special government permission to buy Arab houses. The group has made no similar request requiring special permission for Arabs to buy Jewish homes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=170297&mesg_id=170358