• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

32% of West Bank settlements built on private Palestinian land


Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,093
Proof that Israeli settlements - contrary to their apologists like L'Chaim - are often built on private Palestinian land - which in fact is a violation not only of international law (Fourth Geneva Convention) but also of Israeli law itself.

wikipedia said:
By Israeli law, privately owned land can not be part of a settlement.[85] In 2006 Peace Now acquired a report, which it claims was leaked from the Israeli Government's Civil Administration, indicating that up to 40 percent of the land Israel plans to retain in the West Bank is privately owned by Palestinians.[118] Peace Now called this a violation of Israeli law.[119] Peace Now published a comprehensive report about settlements on private lands.[120][121] In the wake of a legal battle, Peace Now lowered the figure to 32 percent, which the Civil Administration also denied.[122] The Washington Post reported that "The 38-page report offers what appears to be a comprehensive argument against the Israeli government's contention that it avoids building on private land, drawing on the state's own data to make the case."[123]

In February 2008, the Civil Administration stated that the land on which more than a third of West Bank settlements was built had been expropriated by the IDF for "security purposes."[124] The unauthorized seizure of private Palestinian land was defined by the Civil Administration itself as 'theft.'[125] According to B'Tselem, more than 42 percent of the West Bank are under control of the Israeli settlements, 21 percent of which was seized from private Palestinian owners, much of it in violation of the 1979 Israeli Supreme Court decision.[56]

A secret database, drafted by a retired senior officer, Baruch Spiegel, on orders from former defense minister Shaul Mofaz, found that some settlements deemed legal by Israel were illegal outposts, and that large portions of Ofra, Elon Moreh and Beit El were built on private Palestinian land. The "Spiegel report" was revealed by Haaretz in 2009. Many settlements are largely built on private lands, without approval of the Israeli Government.[126] According to Israel, the bulk of the land was vacant, was leased from the state, or bought fairly from Palestinian landowners.

Invoking the Absentee Property Law to transfer, sell or lease property in East Jerusalem owned by Palestinians who live elsewhere without compensation has been criticized both inside and outside of Israel.[127] Opponents of the settlements claim that "vacant" land belonged to Arabs who fled or collectively to an entire village, a practice that developed under Ottoman rule. B'Tselem charged that Israel is using the absence of modern legal documents for the communal land as a legal basis for expropriating it. These "abandoned lands" are sometimes laundered through a series of fraudulent sales.[128]

According to Amira Hass, one of the techniques used by Israel to expropriate Palestinian land is to place desired areas under a 'military firing zone' classification, and then issue orders for the evacuation of Palestinians from the villages in that range, while allowing contiguous Jewish settlements to remain unaffected.[129]
The government should press for an arms-embargo on Israel until this stops. Preferably this should be expanded to economic sanctions in industries which are not already monopolised by American (and therefore pro-Israel) companies.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,686
Twitter
Deiscirt
That might make you feel all nice and warm but it wouldn't make a blindest bit of difference. Anything (excepting perhaps modern aircraft) the Israelis can't buy, their domestic industry seems to be able to create.

On a more serious note, has a monetary compensation deal for land (as in: Shag off money / Israel buys land for displaced arabs in Arab countries in final settlement) ever been mooted through all the years of peace talks?
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,093
When the Israeli courts say a settlement is illegal, Netanyahu just legalises them retroactively. This is what happened with the Ofra settlement, where forged focuments were used by settlers to fake a land purchase.
The Sasson Report in 2003 introduced criteria for determining the legality of a given settlement under Israeli law. In June 2007, Haaretz reported that 179 of the 600 buildings in Ofra are considered illegal by the Israeli administration.[27]

Ofra is built on private Palestinian land.[6] In a December 2008 report, B'Tselem has argued that while all Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law, Ofra is illegal even under Israeli law stating that it violates 3 of the 4 established criteria for legality in the Sasson report. According to the report, while Ofra was authorized in 1979, it was never defined a jurisdictional area, never had an outline plan approved and no lawful building permits were issued. The report added that at least 58 percent of the settlement's built-up area is registered in the Land Registry Office under the names of Palestinians. Ofra residents claim the land was purchased legally from the Palestinians.[28][4] They contended that the land was purchased legally but suggested that showing documents of the purchases would lead to Palestinian retribution attacks. Land deals are usually kept secret to protect Palestinian sellers. [29] The Yesha Council accused B'Tselem of trying to remove Jews from their land saying the group "will spare no means - even lies" in order to harm the settlements.[28]

Homes were built on land bought with forged documents. Hundreds of structures in Ofra came under a demolition order from the Civil Administration after the villagers of Ein Yabrud laid a petition at the Israeli High Court of Justice over construction on their private land.[30]

A secret database, published by Haaretz in 2009, confirmed that Ofra was largely built on private Palestinian lands, without approval.[31] In September 2011, the Israeli government set up plans to legitimise the settlement retroactively.[32]

Ofra's settlement fence was built without permits over wide swathes of land belonging to the Palestinian villages of Deir Dibwan and Silwad. The IDF has confirmed that permits were lacking, and undertook to rebuild the fence closer to Ofra within 2012. Top quality soil from this agricultural land is systematically harvested, according to Haaretz 'stolen', for settlement use.[33]
Kevin Parlon I am not aware of monetary compensation being offered, except being mooted in the failed Barak-Arafat talks to compensate the 1948 refugees.
 

Bonsai Experiment

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
14,042
On a more serious note, has a monetary compensation deal for land (as in: Shag off money / Israel buys land for displaced arabs in Arab countries in final settlement) ever been mooted through all the years of peace talks?
Arabs to leave historical land to make way for eastern European and American neo-fascist, religious fundamentalist squatters... not sure that one will make much sense to anyone outside your creche.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,686
Twitter
Deiscirt
Arabs to leave historical land to make way for eastern European and American neo-fascist, religious fundamentalist squatters... not sure that one will make much sense to anyone outside your creche.
It makes more sense than what's currently happening, which is misery for all.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,686
Twitter
Deiscirt
Are you talking about people displaced within the Israel /Palestine border or outside of that in Jordan , Lebanon , Syria etc. ?
Yes. It's the easiest thing in the world to say X is the evil side. Y must displace X or there can be no peace. If you look at it objectively (something I believe you are unable to do) you can say; this is about land and justice. The Israelis aren't going to commit mass suicide and they are not going to live under an Arab majority. The Arabs say; we're not going to commit suicide and we're not going to live under the Jews. So, where does that leave us? Genocide, or accommodation? The only (non-genocidal) accommodation can be (IMO) Israelis compensating (paying a ************************load) Arabs to move to other Arab lands.

For a zealot such as yourself, it won't surprise me if you advocate the former solution. If there are other solutions that I am missing, feel free to educate me.
 

Ulster-Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
10,092
Misleading thread.

The West Bank is all Palestinian and therefore 100% of the settlements are on Palestinian land.
 

linny55

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
4,492
Proof that Israeli settlements - contrary to their apologists like L'Chaim - are often built on private Palestinian land - which in fact is a violation not only of international law (Fourth Geneva Convention) but also of Israeli law itself.


The government should press for an arms-embargo on Israel until this stops. Preferably this should be expanded to economic sanctions in industries which are not already monopolised by American (and therefore pro-Israel) companies.
Proof from Wiki , have to do better , i can edit stuff on that.
 

Bonsai Experiment

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
14,042
If there are other solutions that I am missing, feel free to educate me.
Well I learned quickly in previous threads that you are in truth, a cretin that can't be educated on any issue, so i wouldn't try that.
But what do you say to the fact that there is an inalienable right to return enshrined in International Law. How would you intend to deal with that in your "pay off" scheme?
We'll see how you answer that as a precursor to deciding if there is any point in wasting time talking to a blinkered islamophobe with a pathological hatred of Arabs.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,686
Twitter
Deiscirt
Well I learned quickly in previous threads that you are in truth, a cretin that can't be educated on any issue, so i wouldn't try that.
But what do you say to the fact that there is an inalienable right to return enshrined in International Law. How would you intend to deal with that in your "pay off" scheme?
We'll see how you answer that as a precursor to deciding if there is any point in wasting time talking to a blinkered islamophobe with a pathological hatred of Arabs.
Beginning a response with personal insults isn't widely regarded as being constructive (unless you're North Korean, where it is considered de rigeur). Both sides can talk inalienable rights at each other until the end of time. It isn't going to resolve matters. That's why it's called in impasse. Your post is also sickeningly self-righteous, setting as it does, some sort of "test" if I can be deemed permitted to comment on the subject. It is precisely this kind of inflexible position that sees generation after generation subjected to what we see today. Violence, injustice. Both sides have a claim. The Israelis, being as intractable as the Arabs and with the upper hand in terms of power are doing most of the kicking, but you're being fanciful if u believe the same wouldn't occur in the reverse (and quite possibly much worse) were the shoe on the other foot.

To my eternal (retrospective) shame, I voted against the GFA. I was too steeped in Blut und Boden nationalism (and too young) to see any different. I regarded the Articles 2 and 3 as sacred cows that under pain of patriot dead, could not be relinquished. But I think we can all see (well, most of us) that relinquishing the blut-und-boden hold over "the land our forefathers" blah blah blah was just a recipe for more bloodshed and human misery. I'd still like to see a United Ireland, but only one where there is genuine acceptance between Gaelic and non-Gaelic identifying people.

There is no way to solve the problem without significant compromise. There is no way to solve the problem without pain. But a solution must be sought none-the-less.

So. The uncomfortable realities:

The Israelis have nowhere to go. The Palestinians do.
The Israelis are taking Palestinian Land. Because they can. This is unjust and indefensible.
The Palestinians have overt, inflexible genocidal designs on the Israelis.

I think a solution would be for Israelis to pay, with interest, an amount internationally adjudicated to be fair, for the land they've taken and in return, to be guaranteed peace from attack.

The whole thing is an unholy mess, but simply shouting slogans at people who have nowhere to go is a child's game.
 

florin

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
1,367
Arabs to leave historical land to make way for eastern European and American neo-fascist, religious fundamentalist squatters... not sure that one will make much sense to anyone outside your creche.
But what do you say to the fact that there is an inalienable right to return enshrined in International Law. How would you intend to deal with that in your "pay off" scheme?
I suppose it would mean accepting that return won't happen, just like the Germans won't regain Prussia, the Jews won't return to Poland or Iraq, the northern unionists won't go back to Britain, Britain won't give Gibraltar to Spain, and Cyprus and Korea will stay divided. Fact is, the Israelis aren't going to stop seizing land any time soon, and the US will never stop backing them. Palestinians will have to cut their losses at some point.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,686
Twitter
Deiscirt
I suppose it would mean accepting that return won't happen, just like the Germans won't regain Prussia, the Jews won't return to Poland or Iraq, the northern unionists won't go back to Britain, Britain won't give Gibraltar to Spain, and Cyprus and Korea will stay divided. Fact is, the Israelis aren't going to stop seizing land any time soon, and the US will never stop backing them. Palestinians will have to cut their losses at some point.
The elephant in the room (rather noisy and obvious if you ask me) here is religion. Religion's dehumanising properties are more starkly illuminated by this problem, than any other. It makes a very difficult problem, impossible.
 

Ren84

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
50,016
Beginning a response with personal insults isn't widely regarded as being constructive (unless you're North Korean, where it is considered de rigeur). Both sides can talk inalienable rights at each other until the end of time. It isn't going to resolve matters. That's why it's called in impasse. Your post is also sickeningly self-righteous, setting as it does, some sort of "test" if I can be deemed permitted to comment on the subject. It is precisely this kind of inflexible position that sees generation after generation subjected to what we see today. Violence, injustice. Both sides have a claim. The Israelis, being as intractable as the Arabs and with the upper hand in terms of power are doing most of the kicking, but you're being fanciful if u believe the same wouldn't occur in the reverse (and quite possibly much worse) were the shoe on the other foot.

To my eternal (retrospective) shame, I voted against the GFA. I was too steeped in Blut und Boden nationalism (and too young) to see any different. I regarded the Articles 2 and 3 as sacred cows that under pain of patriot dead, could not be relinquished. But I think we can all see (well, most of us) that relinquishing the blut-und-boden hold over "the land our forefathers" blah blah blah was just a recipe for more bloodshed and human misery. I'd still like to see a United Ireland, but only one where there is genuine acceptance between Gaelic and non-Gaelic identifying people.

There is no way to solve the problem without significant compromise. There is no way to solve the problem without pain. But a solution must be sought none-the-less.

So. The uncomfortable realities:

The Israelis have nowhere to go. The Palestinians do.
The Israelis are taking Palestinian Land. Because they can. This is unjust and indefensible.
The Palestinians have overt, inflexible genocidal designs on the Israelis.

I think a solution would be for Israelis to pay, with interest, an amount internationally adjudicated to be fair, for the land they've taken and in return, to be guaranteed peace from attack.

The whole thing is an unholy mess, but simply shouting slogans at people who have nowhere to go is a child's game.
You're a clown. Where exactly do the Palestinians have to go? And if someone pointed a gun at you, threw some money at you in return for your home would you be happy about it? Moron!
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,686
Twitter
Deiscirt
you're a clown. Where exactly do the palestinians have to go? And if someone pointed a gun at you, threw some money at you in return for your home would you be happy about it? Moron!
qed
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,686
Twitter
Deiscirt
Go one, explain where the Palestinian people can go? I'm waiting.......
With enough money? Anywhere in the Arab world. Is that entirely fair? No. Is it the only realistic option? IMO, yes. Is the fact that Ulster was planted with 'foreigners' fair? No. Is it reality? Yes. Can we get over it? 'Yes'.
 

Bonsai Experiment

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
14,042
Both sides can talk inalienable rights at each other until the end of time. It isn't going to resolve matters. That's why it's called in impasse...........

So. The uncomfortable realities:

The Israelis have nowhere to go. The Palestinians do.
The Israelis are taking Palestinian Land. Because they can. This is unjust and indefensible.
The Palestinians have overt, inflexible genocidal designs on the Israelis.
No, The Israelis do not have inalienable rights in this. This is a point of international law , so saying they do, doesn't make it so. Only one group of people have an inalienable right to return to this land and they are what we call the Palestinian Refugees. If you don't accept that, then the conversation is finished as you are plain factually wrong. If you do accept that then how do you propose to honour that right ? You talk about justice , but any deal that ignores inalienable rights cant be just , so you cant skip around it.

Second, you say the Israelis have nowhere to go. Are these the Israelis living in Israel or the Israelis living illegally in the West Bank in contravention of International Law that you are talking about? as these are the basics that underly your pay off offer and cant be sidestepped or ignored , they simply cant as much as you, or even I, might like to.
These are Palestinian rights and entitlements, under existing international law.
 
Top