Official report reveals how illegal settlements were encouraged by gov't

[sharonbn]

Over the years, Israeli governments allowed illegal settlements to be established by looking the other way and using 'below the table' aid techniques. So states an official report on the illegal settlements on the occupied territories. The report was ordered by the gov't and was published today, Sunday, in Yedioth newspaper.

The report was written by Talia Sasson from the State Prosecution bureau by appointment from the PM office and is due to be published in a few days. In the letter of appointment that Sasson received from PM Sharon she was asked to "investigate and form a legal opinion on the unauthorized settlements in WB and GS." Sasson was asked to document the location of all the settlements, the date of their establishment and the actions of the authorities during that time.

The 300 pages of the report reveal a systematic and institutionalized method of maintenance and supply of services that was given to the settlements that the gov't did not approve. There were many involved in the routine: ministry of defense, IDF, civil administration, the police, ministries of infrastructure, education, industry and commerce, treasure, housing and religious affairs.

Head of Binyamin regional municipality, Pinhas Valerstein told Ynet: "The contemptible part of this report is that no comparison was made to Jewish settlements in the Galilee or the Negev. In all cases, there is a huge gap between the establishment on the ground and the completion of the statutory proceedings. I am ashamed that I need to draw a comparison with the Arab population in Israel, where the situation is much worse and yet no one says anything about it."

Valerstein added: "Would Ms. Sasson dare and publish a report on the illegal Arab settlements around Beer Sheba? including the funding they receive from the state for education, water, electricity etc., all without any authorization or legal approval?"

The report checked what happened in the last ten years ago found that all levels of government - starting from the minister down to the lowest clerk, all ignored legal breaching by the settlers, who took over private and state lands. during that period, some 120 illegal settlements were established, bypassing outline planning and housing laws and ignoring land taxation. This included expansion of existing settlements.

Former and present Attorney Generals Elyakim Robinstein and Benny Mazuz ordered gov't ministries to cease funding of illegal settlements. However, even after these orders were issued, the system continued working as usual: budget was still allocated to caravans, hooking up to the electricity and water systems, setting up kindergartens, etc.

The report further mentions that despite several 'red flags' rose by the law enforcement authorities, ministers continued to exercise 'legal acrobatics' in order to allow their offices to continue funding the settlements. the report reveals a system of double funding that was used to support housing in the settlements.

Attorney Sasson does not intend to include personal recommendations in the report, since she was not authorized to do so. She does intend to suggest legal ways to handle settlement evacuation that are easier and faster that what is suggested today, which is cumbersome and prone to cracks and loopholes that are exploited by the settlers. Among other things Sasson intends to recommend changes in regulations and work procedures, as well as planning outlines to halt further expansion of the settlements.

* translated from Ynet.

[danholo]

It is unfortunate that people use their power for their emotional desires, like settlement in all of the land. Of course Israelis have an emotional obligation to help those Jews in the territories. Who else would do it?

[Ariksan]

[cynicalmode=On]

Spot on. It's a real shame that all governments allowed so many illegal arab buildings to be built in Shomron, Yehuda and Aza. I'm glad there is finally a report about this illegal arab settlements.

[cynicalmode=Off]

[Toga]

Illegal settlements?

Wrong! What you mean by "illegal" is at best NOT THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED.

Also, how can it be "illegal" when that land is not legally defined and there is no legal sovereignity. When there is no legal sovereignity there are no police powers, zoning regulations, etc. What insurance company would insure the title to the land when it is not properly referenced? Would it be the same bank that assisted Arafat in laundering his assets after embezzement? The land is claimed by both the Jews and Arabs. So, at best it is "disputed". The Palestinian Arabs have been building their settlements up on the disputed land even though they never had sovereignity over it. However, when the Palestinians are building the settlements the world looks away but when the Jews build up the land with the red-tiled roofs this world screams.

Let me remind you that Palestinians also claim Bethlehem. That is where Jesus was born. Was Jesus Palestinian Arab or a Jew from Judea? While there has NEVER been a sovereign Arab Palestine on the surface of this planet there was a sovereign Jewish state right on land claimed by Palestinian Arabs where want to create a second Palestinian state (first is Jordan).

[KettleWhistle]

So what, sharonbn? What's the big deal about it?

[sharonbn]

no legal sovereignity? give me a break...

so when a person breaks into a house in WB and steal all the contents - he is not considered a thief? that man did not break any law because there is "no legal sovereignity"? the police cannot arrest him? so there are no murders, rapes and frauds committed in the occupied territories? really?

Israel conquered WB and GS. Israel is the law enforcing body in the occupied territories. according to int'l law, Israel is responsible for maintaining order and ensuring the security and protection of the residents. That includes personal security as well as posession.

The fact that Palestinians did not have a state of their own does not mean they do not privately own land. Before the state of Israel was founded, Jews bought pieces of land in Israel and settled on it. They were entitled to expect protection from the government when their posession was thretened. Same goes for Palestinians who privately own houses and pieces of land.

[KettleWhistle]

The fact that Palestinians did not have a state of their own does not mean they do not privately own land. Before the state of Israel was founded, Jews bought pieces of land in Israel and settled on it. They were entitled to expect protection from the government when their posession was thretened. Same goes for Palestinians who privately own houses and pieces of land.

Correct me if I"m wrong, but AFAIK under Israeli law nobody can own any land. Legally, the land is being leased to private individuals, not sold.

[sharonbn]

The big deal about it, KettleWhistle, is that the government is expected to follow and uphold the laws of the state.

When the law authorities, like the attorney general (who is the legal advisor to the gov't in Israel) and chief prosecutor say that government actions contradict the law, I expect the government to correct its actions so that they fall within law boundaries. I think it is a minimum requirement from a government, otherwise it cannot expect the citizens to follow the laws.

I certainly do not expect gov't officials to engage in 'below the table' tactics to circumvent laws. When criminal underworld factors bribe their way into gov't contracts, it is called corruption and everyone condemns it. When there is a political agenda behind these tactics, it is suddenly not a big deal....

[KettleWhistle]

The big deal about it, KettleWhistle, is that the government is expected to follow and uphold the laws of the state.

When the law authorities, like the attorney general (who is the legal advisor to the gov't in Israel) and chief prosecutor say that government actions contradict the law, I expect the government to correct its actions so that they fall within law boundaries. I think it is a minimum requirement from a government, otherwise it cannot expect the citizens to follow the laws.

I certainly do not expect gov't officials to engage in 'below the table' tactics to circumvent laws. When criminal underworld factors bribe their way into gov't contracts, it is called corruption and everyone condemns it. When there is a political agenda behind these tactics, it is suddenly not a big deal....

Do you expect them to be true to the Zionist principles of liberating the Land of Israel from Arab foreigners? You know, the same principles that resulted in Israel's rebirth in the first place?

[sharonbn]

Correct me if I"m wrong, but AFAIK under Israeli law nobody can own any land. Legally, the land is being leased to private individuals, not sold.

First of all, there is privately owned land in Israel, land that does not belong to the state. An example of this is property that is owned by foriegn bodies such as the Catholic church, who owns a lot of land in Jer'm.

Also, this law only applies to land that was within Israeli borders at the time of the foundation of the state of Israel (i.e. green line Israel.) Int'l law protects private property from annexation by military occupation. Israeli annexation of Jer'm and Golan Hieghts is considerd illegal according to int'l law.

[KettleWhistle]

First of all, there is privately owned land in Israel, land that does not belong to the state. An example of this is property that is owned by foriegn bodies such as the Catholic church, who owns a lot of land in Jer'm.

Also, this law only applies to land that was within Israeli borders at the time of the foundation of the state of Israel (i.e. green line Israel.) Int'l law protects private property from annexation by military occupation. Israeli annexation of Jer'm and Golan Hieghts is considerd illegal according to int'l law.
So Arabs did not agree to Israel's annexation of the Golan. So what? It has nothing to do with international or any other laws, and everything to do with liberating the land that's ours by birthright.

[sharonbn]

Do you expect them to be true to the Zionist principles of liberating the Land of Israel from Arab foreigners? You know, the same principles that resulted in Israel's rebirth in the first place?

There is no Zionist principle that views Arabs as foriegners in Israel.
There is no Zionist principle that calls for liberation of land from Arabs.

Such principals would be rightfully labeled as racists, since they deprive Arabs of rights (such as to own property) based solely on ethnic belonging.

The Zionist principle calls for the establishment and maintenance of a national home for the Jews in Israel. The Zionists believe that this national home can be realized w/o violating rights of Arabs over the land.
That is why Zionists did not engage in any unlawful activities prior to the establishment of Israel. They purchased land from Arabs and legally own the land before they settled on it.

That course of action changed with the settlements in the o.t.

[sharonbn]

So Arabs did not agree to Israel's annexation of the Golan. So what? It has nothing to do with international or any other laws, and everything to do with liberating the land that's ours by birthright.

There is no such thing as birthright. You cannot take a man's property because it is your birthright. This is stealing.

Israel draws its legitimacy from UN resolution 181. If it wasn't for that resolution, the state of Israel could not have been founded and it would not get world recognition. If we rely on int'l law for recognition (and we do) we need to uphold the law.

[KettleWhistle]

There is no Zionist principle that views Arabs as foriegners in Israel.
There is no Zionist principle that calls for liberation of land from Arabs.

Such principals would be rightfully labeled as racists, since they deprive Arabs of rights (such as to own property) based solely on ethnic belonging.

Boloney. There is nothing racist about it as it does not ascribe superiority to one race over the other. Futhermore, we are same race as the Arabs. And it would not deprive them of any rights. They can have all the rights due to them when they are in their own countries. Israel is not an Arab country, so foreigners should have no expectation of prima facia equality.


That course of action changed with the settlements in the o.t.
No, it did not. The settler movement was started for a number of reasons, but mainly because the Arabs would not accept resolution 242, and would not agree to peace. So the only option left to leftist covards was to settle the land with Jews to the point of Jewish majority before annexing it. But holding on to our native land is what Zionism all about.

[KettleWhistle]

There is no such thing as birthright. You cannot take a man's property because it is your birthright. This is stealing.

Israel draws its legitimacy from UN resolution 181. If it wasn't for that resolution, the state of Israel could not have been founded and it would not get world recognition. If we rely on int'l law for recognition (and we do) we need to uphold the law.

Wrong. If the law is fundamentally unfair we have no such obligation. There is nothing morally wrong with stealing food when you are hungry or with killing in sefl-defense. Likewise there is nothing wrong with fighting for our land with all we got, legal and illegal.

[sharonbn]

Boloney. There is nothing racist about it as it does not ascribe superiority to one race over the other.
Racism is any kind of discrimination of a group of people based on ethnic identity. go read a dictionary.

Futhermore, we are same race as the Arabs.
This is the first time I heard this statement. Jews are a separate race. So are Arabs, Turks, Persians, Yemenites and Indians.

And it would not deprive them of any rights. They can have all the rights due to them when they are in their own countries. Israel is not an Arab country, so foreigners should have no expectation of prima facia equality.
Israel is the country of Israeli citizens. residents in land controlled by Israel can and should expect basic human rights from the ruler. In any case, Palestinians do not carry Egyptian or Jordanian citizenship and cannt expect to receive citizenship when they move to these coutries. Not more then they can expect it if they move to the US.

No, it did not. The settler movement was started for a number of reasons, but mainly because the Arabs would not accept resolution 242, and would not agree to peace. So the only option left to leftist covards was to settle the land with Jews to the point of Jewish majority before annexing it. But holding on to our native land is what Zionism all about.
This is off topic.
The issue is not what Arabs think or do about the settlments. The issue is about the Israeli gov't not following the laws of the state of Israel, by supporting illegal settlements. The issue is about the Israeli gov't and the settlements. The Arabs are not a party in this matter.

[sharonbn]

Wrong. If the law is fundamentally unfair we have no such obligation. There is nothing morally wrong with stealing food when you are hungry or with killing in sefl-defense. Likewise there is nothing wrong with fighting for our land with all we got, legal and illegal.

self defense is not illegal. stealing food is illegal. if you're hungry, there are private and gov't organization that can help you. being deprived of human right (like the right for life sustain material) does not give moral right for criminal action snice that means you deprive another person of his human right.

There is nothing wrong with fighting for our land, but illegal means are just that - illegal. Those who commit criminal offense cannot justify their actions by a holy cause.

[KettleWhistle]

Racism is any kind of discrimination of a group of people based on ethnic identity. go read a dictionary.

This is the first time I heard this statement. Jews are a separate race. So are Arabs, Turks, Persians, Yemenites and Indians.

Jews are not a separate race. We are Semitic people, just like the Arabs. We are a different ethnicity, but just like the Arabs we are Caucasians and Semites. In either case, this conflict has absolutely nothing to do with their or our race, so your argument is just demagogical propaganda.

Israel is the country of Israeli citizens. residents in land controlled by Israel can and should expect basic human rights from the ruler. In any case, Palestinians do not carry Egyptian or Jordanian citizenship and cannt expect to receive citizenship when they move to these coutries. Not more then they can expect it if they move to the US.
And that would be their problem, not ours. And BTW, settlements don't deprive them of basic human rights.

This is off topic.
The issue is not what Arabs think or do about the settlments. The issue is about the Israeli gov't not following the laws of the state of Israel, by supporting illegal settlements. The issue is about the Israeli gov't and the settlements. The Arabs are not a party in this matter.
The issue is a moral one, that is one of the moral imperatives. What is more important, fighting for a part of our motherland or some obscure law?

[sharonbn]

Jews are not a separate race. We are Semitic people, just like the Arabs. We are a different ethnicity, but just like the Arabs we are Caucasians and Semites.
different ethnicity means different race. The origin of the Arabs are nomadic tribes that came from the great deserts of Saudi Arabia peninsula. origin of Jews are tribes from the land of Israel who migrated to Egypt and then returned to Israel. different history, different customs, different language, different religion, different ethnicity - different race.

Semitic is a title for a family of races that have some similarites (e.g. geographic proximity, linguistic similarities.) Semitic is the same as saying European, Latin American, etc.

In either case, this conflict has absolutely nothing to do with their or our race, so your argument is just demagogical propaganda.
To say that Zionism has any principle that involves any race other than the Jewish race is racist and also false. Zionism does not concern itself with any race on the face of the earth - other then ensuring the survival of the Jewish race by means of national home. That is the sole principle of Zionism.

And that would be their problem, not ours. And BTW, settlements don't deprive them of basic human rights.
No. If residents under Israeli rule experience violation of human rights - that is the problem of the Israeli gov't. since it is its job to protect the residents.
Settlements deprive basic human rights of Palestinians when they steal their land. When this theft is sanctioned by the gov't - that becomes the problem of the judicial system and the public opinion.

The issue is a moral one, that is one of the moral imperatives. What is more important, fighting for a part of our motherland or some obscure law?
A moral value is upholding the law. Without the law there is no democratic gov't and no soverign state. Nothing left to fight over.

[KettleWhistle]

different ethnicity means different race. The origin of the Arabs are nomadic tribes that came from the great deserts of Saudi Arabia peninsula. origin of Jews are tribes from the land of Israel who migrated to Egypt and then returned to Israel. different history, different customs, different language, different religion, different ethnicity - different race.

Semitic is a title for a family of races that have some similarites (e.g. geographic proximity, linguistic similarities.) Semitic is the same as saying European, Latin American, etc.

Ethnicity and race are not the same thing. Races are larger groups that encompas numerous ethnicities. Blacks are a race. Whites (Caucasians) are a race. Jews are not a race. Just like Germans are not a race. And Jews and Arabs are not different races, just like the French and the Italians are not different races.

To say that Zionism has any principle that involves any race other than the Jewish race is racist and also false. Zionism does not concern itself with any race on the face of the earth - other then ensuring the survival of the Jewish race by means of national home. That is the sole principle of Zionism.
Which is exactly my point. Except, it is Jewish people, not Jewish race. So you trying to ascribe some sort of racist spin to what I was saying is completely out of place.

No. If residents under Israeli rule experience violation of human rights - that is the problem of the Israeli gov't. since it is its job to protect the residents.
Settlements deprive basic human rights of Palestinians when they steal their land. When this theft is sanctioned by the gov't - that becomes the problem of the judicial system and the public opinion.


Wrong. Settlements don't "steal" anyone's land. They are build on our native land to begin with, and they don't deprive the made-up nation of Palestinians of anything. The only problem with the settlement is xenophobic Arabs who can't stand some other people settling nearby.

A moral value is upholding the law. Without the law there is no cemocratic gov't and no soverign state. Nothing left to fight over.
There is no moral value in upholding the law that kills your people or removes them from their own land.

[sharonbn]

Ethnicity and race are not the same thing. Races are larger groups that encompas numerous ethnicities. Blacks are a race. Whites (Caucasians) are a race. Jews are not a race. Just like Germans are not a race. And Jews and Arabs are not different races, just like the French and the Italians are not different races.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race
race
n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.


Which is exactly my point. Except, it is Jewish people, not Jewish race. So you trying to ascribe some sort of racist spin to what I was saying is completely out of place.
No it is NOT exactly your point. Your point was that a Zionist principle stated that Israel does not belong to the Arabs who reside on it and the land should be liberated from them. There was never and never will be any such principle.

Wrong. Settlements don't "steal" anyone's land. They are build on our native land to begin with, and they don't deprive the made-up nation of Palestinians of anything. The only problem with the settlement is xenophobic Arabs who can't stand some other people settling nearby.
Settlements steal land from private Arabs. This theft is sanctioned by the state.

There is no moral value in upholding the law that kills your people or removes them from their own land.
There is no law that "kills" Jews. Why do you say such things? It only diminishes the credibility of everything else you say. There is also no law that removes Jews from their own land. Occupied territories are not Jewish land by any standard.

[KettleWhistle]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race
race
n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
You are using an overly broad and general definition. Race and ethnicity are not the same thing. Futhermore, racism is a supremacist ideology, so either way it has nothing to do with this situation.

No it is NOT exactly your point. Your point was that a Zionist principle stated that Israel does not belong to the Arabs who reside on it and the land should be liberated from them. There was never and never will be any such principle.


Israel is a Jewish state. It isn't an Arab country. There are plenty of countries that have minorities, but that doesn't make these countries belong to these minorities. There are Germans living in France, but France isn't a German country. There are millions of Ukranians living in Russia, but that doesn't make Russia their country, as their country is Ukraine. What makes Israel different?

Settlements steal land from private Arabs. This theft is sanctioned by the state. That's an outright lie, and you should know it. Settlements have not "stole" anyone's land, and have not displaced a single Arab. If anything, they more likely contributed to the local economy.

There is no law that "kills" Jews. Why do you say such things? It only diminishes the credibility of everything else you say. There is also no law that removes Jews from their own land. Occupied territories are not Jewish land by any standard.
The so-called "occupied territories" are Jewish native land. That's where our blood was brewed, and where the patriarhs of our nation are buried. We are the children of that land, and in my book that makes it our, Jewish land.

[sharonbn]

You are using an overly broad and general definition. Race and ethnicity are not the same thing. Futhermore, racism is a supremacist ideology, so either way it has nothing to do with this situation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racism
racism
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Please, don't let the facts get in your way...

Israel is a Jewish state. It isn't an Arab country. There are plenty of countries that have minorities, but that doesn't make these countries belong to these minorities. There are Germans living in France, but France isn't a German country. There are millions of Ukranians living in Russia, but that doesn't make Russia their country, as their country is Ukraine. What makes Israel different?
again, off topic.
No one claims that Israel is an Arab country. Israel is a Jewish country. The question are the borders of the Israeli state
When Germany annexed Sudate region of Czechoslovakia - did that region become German?
When China conquered Tibet, expelled the local inhabitants and settled Chinese in the land - did that region become Chinese?
When Russia conquered Afghanistan - did that region become Russian?
When Iraq conquered Kuwait - did that region become Iraqi?

in the 20th cent., annexation by military occupation is considered immoral and illegal.

That's an outright lie, and you should know it. Settlements have not "stole" anyone's land, and have not displaced a single Arab. If anything, they more likely contributed to the local economy.

In 1979, residents of the village of Rojib, South-East from Nablus, petitioned the Israeli supreme court against confiscation of 5,000 Dunam which they owned, by order from the military commander of Judea and Samaria region. The land was then allocated for the establishment of Alon More settlement. The infrastructure work began on the same day that the Seize order was given to the Arab owners.

In court, the state argued that the confiscated land was designed for military purposes. This argument was used in the past when similar petitions were laid before the supreme court. between 1968 and 1974, some 47,000 Dunam were confiscated by military orders under the pretext of military use. These lands were used for the foundation of the following settlements: Matityahu, Neve Tzuf, Rimonim, Beit El, Kochav Hashahar, Alon Shvut, Elazar, Efrat, Har Gilo, Migdal Oz, Gittit, Yitav and Kiryat Arba. Past petitions were refused by the court, which accepted the state argument for military use of the land (this use is sanctioned by int'l law, as stated in 4th Geneva convention.)

However, in the case of Alon More, the settlers themselves joined the defense. in a deposition given to the court, Menahem Felix explained his position on the case:
"To place the confiscation order on military purposes means to state that the settlement is temporary and will be removed once military considerations are reviewed. This conclusion is rejected by us, and also contradicts gov't policy regarding this settlement. In all our discussions and agreements with the gov't, we were told that the settlement is designed to be permanent."

Former chief of stuff, Haim Bar Lev, passed his deposition to the court where he undermined the military purpose of the settlement. His statement, presented by the plaintiffs argued that according to his professional opinion, "Alon More settlement does not contribute to Israel's security."

Based on these statements, and many other evidence, the court ordered the state to evacuate the settlement and return the land to its Arab owners. The immediate result was finding an alternative place for the settlement. Yet, the groundbreaking novelty in the court's decision was that Israel ceased to use military orders for seize of privately owned land in the occupied territories.

The so-called "occupied territories" are Jewish native land. That's where our blood was brewed, and where the patriarhs of our nation are buried. We are the children of that land, and in my book that makes it our, Jewish land.
There is no legal view which sanctions these subjective statements. A legal government cannot carry out a policy which is based on these foundations.

[Mediocrates]

How will they drop the country in amber for eternity to insure that no one ever moves or owns something in a different place? I mean there are lots of people who champion a Jew Free Yesha. But how do you insure that it stays that way? Do you propose that Arabs can buy up unlimited parcels of Israel while Jewish Israelis are forbidden to do the same?

[sharonbn]

How will they drop the country in amber for eternity to insure that no one ever moves or owns something in a different place? I mean there are lots of people who champion a Jew Free Yesha. But how do you insure that it stays that way? Do you propose that Arabs can buy up unlimited parcels of Israel while Jewish Israelis are forbidden to do the same?

I don't understand this post at all.

"How will they drop the country in amber for eternity"
Who is "they"? what is to "drop" a country? what is "the country in amber"?

If you mean how the gov't ensures that settlers do not go and settle somewhere else, then I still don't see the issue. One cannot just go to a piece of land and sit there and say he's living there. He has to produce a proof of ownership. Any legal transaction that involves real estate has to go through legal authorities = gov't authorities.

So what is the problem with knowing who owns what and who lives where and controlling who moves from on place to another?

and I don't understand this question:
"Do you propose that Arabs can buy up unlimited parcels of Israel while Jewish Israelis are forbidden to do the same?"
Which Arabs do you refer to? Israeli or Palestinian? and what do you refer to when you say "parcels of Israel"? do you mean proper green line Israel or occupied territories?
Arab Israelis are Israeli citizens and can buy land in Israel as they wish. So can Jews. Palestinians of course cannot buy any land in Israel. The reverse should be applied to the occupied territories: Israeli citizens should not be allowed to purchase land there, since this land is likely to become independent Palestine sometime in the future. as I said before, all real estate transactions go through official authorities so the question of "insuring" this policy is not clear.

[Mediocrates]

I too support the complete economic separation of each party from the other. No real estate, no businesses, no workforce can be shared. If the Palestinians want a sterilized Jew Free land, then fine. This way the security fence can be seen as a tool of economic protectionism as much to protect the PLO and it's racist purity as it is to protect the Jews. I agree completely. I think that in the next 3-5 years Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon will have to agree to a pan regional water resource development agreement. Let the PLO haggle out their own deal with whomever will deal with them. Gaza won't be a technical problem since they can desalinate the ocean but the West Bank is more problematic. As always separation is the key. They must be allowed to be 100% Jew Free and damn all other considerations.

[Mediocrates]

I'm not sure 30 dumans would constitute 'buying up' none the less:

The "Land Redemption Fund" has secretly bought more than seven acres (30 dunams) of land in Gaza, and is negotiating to buy much more.

The Fund, with the help of several millionaires, is also buying large amounts of land throughout Judea and Samaria in an effort to connect neighboring Jewish communities or join them with towns within the pre-1967 border.

Since its purchases began two decades ago, the Fund has bought more than 5,000 acres throughout Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha), according to the Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot's Ynet website.

Jordanian law stipulates the death punishment for anyone selling land to Jews, and Palestinian Authority hit squads have murdered several Arabs who acted as middle-men in such deals in recent years. The sellers are usually farmers who need the money and do not necessarily know that the prospective buyers are Jewish.

G., an Arab land agent, revealed that his commission is 20% of every transaction's value. He explained, "From the standpoint [of the Arab seller], the sale is to Arabs. That is our way of protecting him. It has happened more than once that [the seller believes] that I represent Jordanian land developers. Most of the land is next to existing Jewish communities, and they need more."

Former General Security Service (Shabak) agents often are employed by the Fund, according to the report. They provide information on names of those who work and own the land.

"Many of the Arab landowners use the money to move to the United States," said one of the millionaires who contributes to the Fund. "That way we not only strengthen Jewish [presence], but also help Arabs move out," he added.


http://www.israelnn.com/news.php?id=76066


Which raises an interesting point? Why did it never occur to the PLO, Hamas, Warcriminals Chris Patten and Terje Larse, the Wazoos of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE as well as St. Saddam the patron saint of La Defence to simply buy out all the Jews of Yesha? It certainly would have been cheaper and easier and less bloody to do so.

Well the short answer is that what they want to do is kill the Jews and any benefit that accrues to the Palestinians is just gravy.

[sharonbn]

If right wing organizations attempt to foil gov't policy by means of secret actions like land purchase, the gov't should confiscate the land without any compensation. let them petition the supreme court which they hold so dear.

[Mediocrates]

You sound like a Stalinist.

[KettleWhistle]

If right wing organizations attempt to foil gov't policy by means of secret actions like land purchase, the gov't should confiscate the land without any compensation. let them petition the supreme court which they hold so dear.

Oh, I see.... so Jews cannot buy or own land there... can you spell "double-standard?"

[KettleWhistle]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racism
racism
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Please, don't let the facts get in your way...

Dictionaries give only general definitions, that are often partially incorrect or incomplete. A good example would be definition of the word "infidel":
From Merriam-Webster Online:
1 : one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity
2 a : an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion b : one who acknowledges no religious belief
3 : a disbeliever in something specified or understood
- infidel adjective

In reality the world is commonly used to describe someone who's not a Muslim, and I have never seen it used to describe someone who's not a Christian, as the definition (1) claims.

In regards to racism, definition (1) is mostly correct. Definition (2) is incomplete, as any racist discrimination is rooted in supremacist beliefs. That's the real-life meaning of these worlds, that comes from historical and real events.

When Germany annexed Sudate region of Czechoslovakia - did that region become German?
Yes.
When China conquered Tibet, expelled the local inhabitants and settled Chinese in the land - did that region become Chinese?
Yes
When Russia conquered Afghanistan - did that region become Russian?
When Iraq conquered Kuwait - did that region become Iraqi?
These were never conquered.

in the 20th cent., annexation by military occupation is considered immoral and illegal.
That's just a simplistic and unrealistic way of looking at it. That land is not some foreign land to us. It is our native land, and that makes much difference, as you well know, but refuse to acknoledge.


In 1979, residents of the village of Rojib, South-East from Nablus, petitioned the Israeli supreme court against confiscation of 5,000 Dunam which they owned, by order from the military commander of Judea and Samaria region. The land was then allocated for the establishment of Alon More settlement. The infrastructure work began on the same day that the Seize order was given to the Arab owners....
So that only shows that it is not done when there is no millitary necessity, and these actions can be considered in a due judicial process.

[utopia]

sharonbn said:

If right wing organizations attempt to foil gov't policy by means of secret actions like land purchase, the gov't should confiscate the land without any compensation. let them petition the supreme court which they hold so dear.

Well, first you say that the Jews confiscate land, then when we tell you that much of the land is bought out of the Arabs you act like you're shocked.

Israel is in itself - partly confiscated land and partly bought land too.

In your case - and it's quite obvious - you don't like Jews in Yesha anyway, you think it should be a judenrein area, though this situation is circumstancial. (meaning that the circumstances during three decades have changed the area.)

If there's an attempt to make those areas judenrein I think there should be a retaliatory position about making Israel Arabrein!!!

The Yesha areas have no prejudiced lines, though someone like sharonbn insists there are. 1967 borders are NOT borders and are just truce lines, that are not internationally obliging us. These together with other unbinding resolutions of the UN are what such people consist their claims of.

UN resolutions, which BTW the Arabs never accepted, and now suddenly rely on, have nothing in them to oblige us to accept 1967 lines, or that what is called Palestine.

It's like accepting your own demise, and we should never accept anything like this. I suppose someone like sharonbn would say there's a right of return of the Plaestinian refugees, while there isn't.

Further more even if one read sharonbn's post about the illegality of the settlements, relying on the Geneva convention - that person should bear in mind that Israel NEVER accepted the interpretation of some bodies rendering Yesha as occupied!!! Mind that we see it as a desputed territory for the least or liberated and not occupied.

That makes the territory sucseptible to Otoman rules, and using those rules land can be disclosed by the government to be used for civil purposes.

And since no settlements (except Hebron) are in the midst of Arab cities and villages, it is more friendly than when Israel came to existance.