Ariel acknowledges it isn't in Israel


By telegramsam
November 14, 2010
Share

In all the kerfuffle over the internal Israeli artists' boycott of the Ariel concert hall, someone forgot to tell Ariel mayor Ron Nachman that the municipality under his stewardship has already argued, in court, that it isn't in Israel.

In December 2007, the Petach Tikva court of appeals issued a ruling (Hebrew) in the case of the municipality of Ariel vs. the State of Israel. In its appeal, the municipality demanded to be exempted from paying VAT to the state; its argument was that the settlement doesn’t fall under the legal category of an ‘Israeli citizen’ or ‘An Israeli resident’, and therefore cannot be required to pay VAT.
Alternatively, Ariel demanded to be exempted from paying taxes over the work of its Palestinian employees.
The Petach Tikva court ruled in favor of the state, and Ariel was required to pay its taxes.

It lost the case, but it's trying to have it both ways when it comes to its legal status.

COMMENTS

Yoni1

Sun, 11/14/2010 - 20:28

Rate this:

1 point

The only one trying to have it both ways is - as usual - Spammo. He'll use any argument to bash Jews and Israel, the 2 objects of his pathological hatred.

This case, if it existed, would have been about the formalities of paying VAT. Such formalities are argued about all the time, and I have had contradictory instructions given to me by VAT inspectors with regard to intra-EU VAT arrangements, when I phoned them on different occasions.

It would have had NOTHING WHATSOEVER with the right of Jews to live in J&S.

Trust Spammo, in his burning hatred, to fail to grasp this.


Avraham Reiss

Sun, 11/14/2010 - 20:53

Rate this:

0 points

Still waiting for a transcript.


jose (not verified)

Sun, 11/14/2010 - 23:06

Rate this:

0 points

And tsam admits that, since Ariel lost the case, that the State of Israel reaffirmed that Ariel is a part of Israel.

Shooting in the leg, tsam? It must hurt!


amber

Sun, 11/14/2010 - 23:55

Rate this:

0 points

tspam takes the opportunity to attck his fellow Jews yet again.

Beyond parody.


raycook

Mon, 11/15/2010 - 01:18

Rate this:

0 points

A more interesting point is this:

Why has Israel never formally annexed the disputed territories, apart from Jerusalem?

I'm not saying it should or shouldn't.

Here are some suggestions for discussion:

1. It cannot legally annexe them
2. Their status is still subject to final border agreements with whoever has the power to negotiate them
3. Israel actually believes a two-state solution is an option that needs to be kept open
4. Annexing would mean over 1 million hostile new citizens who don't want to be part of Israel
5. Although the status of the territories is negotiable, Israel has a legal right to build on land that is not already owned or occupied because of previous legal rulings (i.e San Remo)

Or any combination of above or none of them.

If building beyond the Green Line is illegal, that implies that all that land belongs to someone else - so why does the much vaunted and quoted international law then come to the obvious corollary of this legal ruling and tell us who it belongs to? Which state?

Not Jordan, they have already said that they do not have or wish sovereignty of the 'West Bank'.

Not Palestine because it has never existed.

If beyond the Green Line is land set aside, as it were, for Palestine, why did they not claim it in the 19 years between 1948 and 1967 when Jordan and Egypt controlled Gaza and the West Bank?

Why was it only when it came under Israeli control was this suddenly 'Palestinian land'?

If this is all Palestinian territory beyond the Green Line, why did the Palestinians not declare it as their sovereign state a long time ago?

You can make an argument about the desirability of building in the disputed territories from a political or even ethical point of view, but from a legal point of view it is much more nuanced than the 'Israel stole the land' argument.

The reason there is no Palestinian state is simple.
The PLO/Fatah/Hamas do not want a state on the West Bank and Gaza. They want ALL of Israel too, and this has been their position and their predecessors' (Arab League etc) since 1948, since 1928, since 1898 and it has not changed one iota.

Palestine to the Palestinians means Trans-Jordanian Mandate Palestine including what is now Israel. As soon as a state is established in the West Bank and Gaza it means that they no longer have any excuse for their genocidal war against the Jews of Israel; and if they were to continue it after such a state came into being, they would be found out and world opinion turn against them.

As long as they can string the world along with their own vicitmhood the closer they believe they will come to their ultimate goal.

It's all actually very simple. What complicates it is that no-one dare acknowledge that this is the case. They'd much rather blame Israel for everything.


jose (not verified)

Mon, 11/15/2010 - 05:50

Rate this:

0 points

Ray, no need to say that your analysis is agreed.
Maybe the line about the international opinion is a bit too optimistic. As we can see today, there is little the international opinion knows and is willing to know when Jews are concerned.
At best, they would say "oops!" if the whole of Israel was genocided tomorrow, as they did after WW II. And maybe they'll add: "sorry"!
In the meanwhile, I shall suggest Israel takes care of its citizens and defensible borders.


Avraham Reiss

Mon, 11/15/2010 - 08:02

Rate this:

0 points

Ray, a well thought-out analysis.

I would comment one one point you made:

"As soon as a state is established in the West Bank and Gaza it means that they no longer have any excuse for their genocidal war against the Jews of Israel; and if they were to continue it after such a state came into being, they would be found out and world opinion turn against them."

I don't believe world opinion would then turn against them and in favour of Israel. They would find the right 'spin' and it would willingly be accepted by the West.

The world is moving towards a general peace all around. It will one day reach the point where the only world conflict still standing is the Israel/Arab conflict, and the world will say - based on 2K years of precedent - "let's get rid of Israel and bring a final peace to the world".

That is a very apocalyptic and morbid view, but Ezekiel, Zacharia and Joel prophecy it, and if I didn''t believe in the Prophets of Israel, then what the h*ll am I doing here?

(But no cause for worry: according to the same Good Book, we all come out OK at the end ...)


Yoni1

Mon, 11/15/2010 - 09:30

Rate this:

0 points

Excellent analysis, Ray.

A couple of points:

1. ... it is much more nuanced than the 'Israel stole the land' argument -
actually, it isn't. There is no legal basis at all for claiming that Israel stole anything. More than that: there is no legal basis at all for claiming that Israel cannot build there, and even less (!) for claiming that Jews cannot live there. Yes, BD, San Remo, LoN, UN as the successor, none of them forbid any of the above.

2. But more than that: as I have shown in a previous thread, none of the above has anything to do with 'law'. Claiming otherwise is a subversion of the whole concept of law. None of the above have any sovereign status, none of the above are legislative bodies. They are talking shops of various types, voluntary clubs, and have no legal authority to compel anyone to do anything. At most, they have brutal (in the basic meaning of the term) power to compel weak countries to submit to the will of strong ones.


raycook

Mon, 11/15/2010 - 09:39

Rate this:

0 points

@Jose, @Avraham - well maybe 'world' is too sweeping, but it would certainly be instructive to see how it would be spun thereafter. However, we don't need to hold our breath because the Palestinians don't want a negotiated settlement.


Yvetta

Mon, 11/15/2010 - 11:53

Rate this:

0 points

Excellent, Ray!


mattpryor

Mon, 11/15/2010 - 12:44

Rate this:

0 points

Ray hits the nail on the head. However, following on from Yoni's post:

1. ... it is much more nuanced than the 'Israel stole the land' argument -

Actually this is the opposite of the truth.

Jordan, Egypt and Syria stole land (by military invasion) in 1948. In doing so they cleansed Judea and Samaria, Gaza, the Golans and half of Jerusalem of Jews.

Israel liberated those occupied regions in 1967 when those same Arab states once again sounded the drums of war against the Jewish State.

It is an historical perversion - a sign of just how imbalanced this entire situation has become - that the victims are now being portrayed as the aggressors.

Worse than that, it is a filthy and degrading lie, and people that keep repeating it are either stupid or malevolent.


Avraham Reiss

Mon, 11/15/2010 - 12:52

Rate this:

0 points

Matt,
Your comments reminded me of the old saw "history is always written by the victors".

That's supposed to be us - so what the h*ll has gone awry?


mattpryor

Mon, 11/15/2010 - 13:02

Rate this:

0 points

In this case history is being rewritten by the losers.


raycook

Mon, 11/15/2010 - 13:32

Rate this:

0 points

Excellent points everyone.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS