Illegal Settlements


By suzanna
February 8, 2012
Share

Interesting information from Americans for Peace Now, Settlement Watch:

The owners of the Migron land are Palestinian residents of the villages of Deir Dibwan and Burka. The land on which the outpost was built was registered in the land registry in the name of the Palestinian owners from before 1967 (two of the land owners who originally petitioned the High Court to stop Migron have since died, with the case now passed on to their heirs). The Civil Administration's land registration division has in its possession all of the relevant ownership papers. Indeed, in response to Peace Now's petition, the state submitted an aerial photo confirming the claims of the landowner map. (Scanned versions of the relevant ownership documents and the aerial photo are available here, page 6). Peace Now recently released a video introducing the world to these owners.

Israeli officials have repeatedly confirmed, formally and on the record, that the land on which the outpost of Migron is built is legally owned by Palestinians.

"Nature of land rights: Private Palestinian land (agricultural lands of 'Ein Yabrud and Burka). Body which allocated the land: None." (March 2005 Sasson Report, comments regarding Migron - English translation)

"The land on which the buildings of the outpost were built is registered Palestinian land within the boundaries of the villages of Burka and Deir Dibwan." (Civil Administration declaration, December 2006, made by Brig. Gen. Kamil Abu Rukon, Head of the Civil Administration in the West Bank)

"The land upon which the buildings of the outpost were constructed is registered
privately owned Palestinian land, part of the agricultural terrain within the boundaries of Burka and Dir Debwan...." ( December 2006, statement of the State of Israel to the High Court of Justice in response to Peace Now petition against Migron)

COMMENTS

happygoldfish

Thu, 02/09/2012 - 15:18

Rate this:

0 points

i think you're confusing two separate issues …

the israeli government (or ultimately the israeli electorate) has to judge where in the reasonable range to make the decision

you and i are perfectly capable of judging whether the decision falls in the reasonable range (but just because you or i would come to a different decision within the range, that doesn't mean that the actual decision is unreasonable)


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 02/09/2012 - 17:05

Rate this:

0 points

I entirely agree with you. I merely sought your acknowledgement that the effective judge of reasonableness here is Israel. Some might be tempted to point out that Israel also thinks that the assault on Gaza was reasonable and the abduction of children in the dead of night is reasonable. I couldn't possibly comment.

So moving on ......... Once again you say " Jews " when you don't mean Jews. Presumably in an attempt to invoke false images. This isn't about Jews it is about Israelis illegally colonising land at the point of a tank cannon.When we refer to numerous colonisations of Eastern Poland by Russians we don't speak of Slavs do we? We speak of Russians.

And no I don't think they thereby forfeit the right to life. I think the appropriate way to preseve their lives is to require them to go back to Israel or anywhere else their presence would be legitimate.

Then they would have both life and freedom from the stress that inevitably goes with living the life of a thief.


happygoldfish

Thu, 02/09/2012 - 17:16

Rate this:

0 points

Real Real Zionist: Some might be tempted to point out …

we're on page 2 … i'm not going to be side-tracked … you can raise that somewhere else

Real Real Zionist: This isn't about Jews it is about Israelis …

it's about israeli jews … you wouldn't be objecting if it was israeli arabs (or palestinians), would you?

(and the palestinian law imposing capital punishment is for selling land to jews, not to israelis, nor even to israeli jews!)

let's be clear … the palestinian objection is to jews

Real Real Zionist: And no I don't think they thereby forfeit the right to life. I think they should be required to go back to Israel or anywhere else their presence would be legitimate.

but you do think that if they stay there, then they lose their right to life?

alternatively, if they don't lose their right to life, then surely they're entitled to protection, by a security barrier or other methods?


Advis3r

Thu, 02/09/2012 - 17:28

Rate this:

0 points

Here we have a classic example of using polite language to put over a wholly outrageous claim.

Israel was fully justified to enter Gaza and attack terrorist infrastructure - that the terrorists againsts all the laws of Warfare unlawfully and immorally hid among civilians does not under International Law preclude Israel from pursuing them and whilst Israel unlike the Arabs regrets the death of any civilian despite that the ratio of civilians to combatants killed was one of the lowest ever recorded in modern warfare if not the lowest - that is fact.

Children are arrested at night for the simple reason that at that time most people are at home not out on the streets or elsewhere. Secondly, by carryig out the arrests at night it prevents intereference and what we saw in London when bystanders become involved leading to the increased chances of wider violence and injuries. The law prescribes the hours during which a juvenile cannot be arrested and any police/army officer who flaunts those regulations faces disciplinary action. Israel does not wish this to be the case but tell it to the terrorist organisations who cynically use children to carry out their dirty work for them.

At present no one has issued a binding legal opinion on the status of Judea and Samaria. There never was a State of Palestine and so they cannot legally be called Palestinian Lands. So far as the Palestinians are concerned it is Land which they claim for their own State - they have not defined how far they want that state to extend - to the West they say we only want what was not under Israeli control before 1967 to their own people they say from the river to the sea. They have been offered nearly all that they claimed on two occasions but turned it down. Aplogists say what they were offered was a cheese full of holes but the Americans who were involved in both negotiations dispute that. All it proved was that the Palestinians were not negotiating in good faith.

So far as Israel is concerned it looks to the San Remo Conference in 1920 and the Legaue of Nations ratification of the reconstitution not colonisation of the Jewish people's commonwealth in their ancient homeland as envisaged by the Balfour Declaration.

Until thse two claims are compromised or agreed or determined finally by a binding legal decision of a recognised court ruling against Jewish claims to the area, no one least alone Phoney can with justification say the Jews' presence in Judea and Samaria is illegitimate. We have as much if not more right than anyone else to be here.


happygoldfish

Thu, 02/09/2012 - 17:50

Rate this:

0 points

rrz, we're on page 2 …

advis3r's away on one of his off-topic rants …

just ignore him!

Real Real Zionist

Thu, 02/09/2012 - 17:51

Rate this:

0 points

That is a tough question but not an impossible one

I am not altogether happy about " The right to life "

It seems to me to be more a matter of fact. As is the protection of it. If I wilfully and knowingly put myself in a dangerous situation abroad there is a limit on the obligation of the government to protect me. In this case the government and society is complicit. No I do not think they have a right to protection and certainly not by a barrier whose prime purpose is land theft, and given that this protection involves the imposition of a violent military dictatorship on the indigenous population. If there is a right to life and liberty they have it too


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 02/09/2012 - 18:37

Rate this:

0 points

You ARE a good teacher, Goldfish. I will be much better prepared for that question in the future :)) Prima faci they do have the right to protection by any means available. But these are not moral or universal rights. They are CONTRACTUAL. There is a contract between Israeli society/the Israeli government whereby the settlers will do the imperialist dirty work and in return, the government will protect them. However, why should the rest of us care about a private contract? If this were an internal UK issue, for example, the contract would not be enforceable. This is a contract to enter into illegal activity which no court would enforce. Such contracts are void.

So no, they don't have any rights.

Can I keep you in my closet for whenever I am in need of a tough question?


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 02/09/2012 - 18:39

Rate this:

0 points

You ARE a good teacher, Goldfish. I will be much better prepared for that question in the future :)) Prima faci they do have the right to protection by any means available. But these are not moral or universal rights. They are CONTRACTUAL. There is a contract between Israeli society/the Israeli government whereby the settlers will do the imperialist dirty work and in return, the government will protect them. However, why should the rest of us care about a private contract? If this were an internal UK issue, for example, the contract would not be enforceable. This is a contract to enter into illegal activity which no court would enforce. Such contracts are void.

So no, they don't have any rights.

Can I keep you in my closet for whenever I am in need of a tough question?


happygoldfish

Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:07

Rate this:

0 points

Real Real Zionist: But these are not moral or universal rights. They are CONTRACTUAL.

before i answer any further, can i just check that you really mean that …

are you saying that the right to life is not moral or universal?

because i've been asking you about "losing the right to life", on the assumption that we agree that everyone starts with a moral and universal right to life, after which we can discuss whether a burglar loses that right, or a rapist, or …

i was (if necessary) going to go on about how designating a group of people as having lost the right to life is treating them as animals available for hunting …

but i don't see any point in my pursuing this line if you don't accept that a universal right to life does distinguish humans from (other) animals


Real Real Zionist

Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:57

Rate this:

0 points

I don't think we disagree on that I suspect we have had different training which causes the kind of language we are comfortable with to be different.

I didn't anyway say any right to life was contractual. I said ( or meant ) that the right to certain kinds of protections west bank settlers have is contractual, existing inside of a closed system. Those of us outside the contract are entitled to evaluate its terms taking into account rights of others.


Real Real Zionist

Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:59

Rate this:

0 points

Don't blog in haste.

( do as I say not as I do )


happygoldfish

Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:56

Rate this:

0 points

Real Real Zionist: Don't blog in haste.

i never do!!

i'll try to find the time to reply later today …
in the meantime, you may like to think about whether your language of contract is appropriate here …

should a jewish settler's right not to be killed by a palestinian be governed by a contract to which the palestinians are not a party, or by a relationship, of both being humans?


Advis3r

Fri, 02/10/2012 - 13:11

Rate this:

0 points

Goldfish I am surprised you are engaing someone who thinks Jewish lives in fact anyone's life is to be evaluated on contractual terms even if dressed up in pseudo intellectual clap-trap.
I regret that you have allowed whoever RRZ is to advance a theory which basically takes us back 70 or so years when a nation believed it had the right to evaluate lives and if it thought them unworthy then of course they were to be dispensed with. This is chilling in its barbarity but by being propounded in polite terms it appears perfectly acceptable.
Why on earth are you descending to his level?


happygoldfish

Fri, 02/17/2012 - 11:45

Rate this:

0 points

(ah, you're back online)

suzanna, israel is about to demolish this settlement (and make the 50 families there homeless), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migron_(village) …

On 2 August 2011, Israel's Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering the state to dismantle the outpost by April 2012

Both Shlomy Zachary who represents the Palestinians along with attorney Michael Sfard, on behalf of Yesh Din, said that … the suit was withdrawn because Israel's High Court of Justice had subsequently decided to destroy the outpost.

this is confirmed by peace now (a source which i believe you trust ) …

Dramatic Decision: Supreme Court Orders Dismantling of Migron by March 2012

… so what are you complaining about?

or are you just drawing attention to the impartiality of the israeli judicial system ?

unique in the middle east in giving justice to arabs!

suzanna

Fri, 02/17/2012 - 11:50

Rate this:

0 points

From what I understand the illegal settlers are being moved 'up the road' and in 18 months time (minimum).

The Israeli Govt is using the time to further subvert the law in Israel and thus prove that democracy is a charade in Israel


suzanna

Fri, 02/17/2012 - 11:53

Rate this:

0 points

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM: Israeli settlers from an unauthorized West Bank outpost have accepted an offer from the government to stay put for two more years, despite Israeli Supreme Court orders to evacuate them next month.

The Migron settlement, built in 2001 on what authorities say is private Palestinian land, is seen as a test case for the Israeli government’s resolve – or lack thereof – concerning unauthorized settlement outposts.

Under the proposal, Israel would build a new settlement on a nearby hilltop to house the evicted Migron dwellers, said Migron spokesman Itay Chemo. The decision comes despite an Israeli PROMISE to the U.S. that it would not initiate new settlements in the West Bank, nor expand existing ones.

“We think it is a victory,” Chemo said. “Finally there is an agreement to bring about justice, not just to destroy, and to take a little bit of national responsibility.” He claimed that construction of the new settlement would take about two years to complete, and that Migron residents would be allowed to remain in their homes until then.


suzanna

Fri, 02/17/2012 - 11:55

Rate this:

0 points

The current outpost structures will not be demolished until all families have moved, with the agreement stipulating a 18 month timeline. The agreement must be signed by the Israeli government and the settlers before being presented to the Israeli high court.

But Peace Now director Yariv Oppenhemier said that the deal is in "in direct violation of the court order mandating Migron's eviction by the end of March," according to the Ynet report.

So much for the law / democracy in Israel.


happygoldfish

Fri, 02/17/2012 - 12:34

Rate this:

0 points

suzanna: … the illegal settlers are being moved 'up the road' …

where they won't be on land owned by palestinians …

so the israeli judicial system will be giving the owners their land back!

suzanna: OCCUPIED JERUSALEM: Israeli settlers from an unauthorized West Bank outpost …

of course, suzanna never provides links to support her quotes, even when she's obviously just copied-and-pasted them

in this case, it's so that she can dishonestly cut out of the middle a short paragraph containing the words "which still needs Supreme Court approval"

and also leave out the later words "There is no guarantee that the court, known for its independence, will approve the proposal."

see http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/israeli-settler-outpost-st...

suzanna's words are in italicsIsraeli settlers from an unauthorized West Bank outpost said Monday they have accepted an offer from the government to stay put for two more years, despite Israeli Supreme Court orders to evacuate them next month.

The Migron settlement, built in 2001 on what authorities say is private Palestinian land, is seen as a test case for the Israeli government's resolve — or lack thereof — concerning unauthorized settlement outposts.

Monday's deal, which still needs Supreme Court approval, would allow the government to delay what is likely to be a violent confrontation with the settlers. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supports the proposal but it is still not finalized, officials say.

Under the proposal, Israel would build an entirely new settlement on a nearby hilltop to house the evicted Migron dwellers, said Migron spokesman Itay Chemo. The decision comes despite an Israeli promise to the U.S. that it would not initiate new settlements in the West Bank, nor expand existing ones.

"We think it is a victory," Chemo said. "Finally there is an agreement to bring about justice, not just to destroy, and to take a little bit of national responsibility."

Chemo claimed that construction of the new settlement would take about two years to complete, and that Migron residents would be allowed to remain in their homes until then.

The deal, however, is far from complete. An Israeli official said the proposal would have to be reviewed by Israel's attorney general, and then presented to the Supreme Court for approval. There is no guarantee that the court, known for its independence, will approve the proposal.

the "deal" hasn't even got past the attorney-ggneral yet!

suzanna, don't criticise israeli judges for things that haven't happened yet

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS