PA: Death penalty for those who sell land to Jews

[Behind the Aegis]

The Palestinian Authority has issued yet another warning to Palestinians against selling their homes or properties to Jews, saying those who violate the order would be accused of "high treason" - a charge that carries the death penalty.

The latest warning was issued on Wednesday by the Chief Judge of the Palestinian Authority, Sheikh Tayseer Rajab Tamimi, who reminded the Palestinians of an existing fatwa than bans them from selling property to Jews.

Sheikh Tamimi's warning came in response to reports that Jewish businessmen from the US had purchased 20 dunams of land from Palestinians on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem.

Warning the Palestinians against engaging in "suspicious real estate deeds," the religious leader said that according to Islamic teachings it was a "grave sin" to sell houses and lands to Jews.

more...

[sharp_stick]

1. I thought you were talking about

Pennsylvania. I know we have some really weird losers in Pennsylvania but not that bad.

Gotta love that peace process that GWB hailed as the most important thing he wanted to do during his Presidency.

[Sezu]

68. Yeah, and maybe I'm not up on the New Progressiveness

but it don't sound too progressive to me. Actually it sounds like judenfrie. Is that a progressive policy now?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

112. I think you are confusing that with the Israeli-only roads and facilities on the WB.

Sezu, there is indeed unconscionable discrimination happening in the terrorities Israel illegally occupies; however, Palestinians are on the receiving end of those villainous laws.

[aquart]

2. But Israel is the bad guy according to DU.

Yeah. Whatever.

[Ken Burch]

3. No Palestinians would ever want to sell land to Israelis.

Why would anyone sell a home to his oppressor?

[cali]

4. But that's not what the ban is about.

It's a ban against selling to all Jews.

[Ken Burch]

6. It's only Israelis or those planning to make aliyah and become Israelis that would be buying land

that is Palestinian.

Before this goes any further, yes, I do think the death penalty is wrong. But then again there should be some severe punishment for everyone who was involved in stealing the land upon which the illegal West Bank settlements are constructed.

And Aegis self-righteousness on this is, as is often the case, hypocritical; There are often policies like in wartime involving those who sell land to enemy nationals. We probably would have had a policy something like this(or nearly as intense)regarding the selling of U.S. land to enemy nationals in World War II.

Loss of one's homeland makes people get like this.

But the right to buy Palestinian land is NOT a civil rights issue.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. The only hypocrite here is you.

And if you are going to invoke my name then at least have the fucking balls to address me directly!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

28. You honestly expect the Palestinian legal system to aid and abet Israel's 40+ year illegal

occupation?

There is indeed a crime here, and it's not being committed by the PA.

Shame on all who apply twisted logic to this tragic situation.

[cali]

11. that's ridiculous. you can't claim to know that.

There are Jews in the ISM. There are Jews in other peace groups that back the Palestinians. You can't possibly know what you're claiming.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

26. It's absurd to suggest that an American Jew in the ISM would ever attempt to buy Palestinian land.

It's the International SOLIDARITY movement... not the International SETTLER movement.

[Ken Burch]

139. Yes, there ARE Jews in the ISM and in the peace and human rights groups.

But it goes without saying that NONE of them would possibly try to buy Palestinian land. They'd all regard that as a betrayal of the Palestinian people.

I'm against the death penalty, in this or any other case, but it's silly for people to act like this is the only time a country at war has tried to restrict nationals of its enemy from purchasing land during wartime.

And, while the penalty is extreme, given that land is at the root of this war, is it really surprising that intense feelings would lead to intense measures? Which of us, all living as we do in peace and comfort thousands of miles from the zone of occupation and repression, can really judge?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

25. You have nothing to apologize for. This should be a civil crime of the highest order.

Treason.

[Douglas Carpenter]

107. When Any Palestinian from anywhere can buy land and live as equals anywhere they want inside Israel

And Palestinians who lost their land to Israel have it returned to them and they are free to return home to live as equals.

And the Palestinians inside the Occupied Territories have the same full and equal rights as Israelis, whether in one state or two, then one could argue that land purchases should not be restricted inside the Palestinian Territories.

Until such a time as that, it would be national suicide for the Palestinians to allow determined, organized, ideologically driven and ceaseless efforts to carry out the usurpation of what little remains of Arab-Palestine from its own people.

I am sure the people claiming that this is some sort of racist or anti-Semitic law know perfectly well what the context really is and what is really going on. They are simply revealing that they no more support the two-state solution than they support the one state solution. They simply want to take every inch of Palestine; by hook or by crook. They have once again - as they do quite frequently - let their own mask slip.

[GoesTo11]

116. Let the Palestinains kill each other.

It's their business, not ours.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

119. Exactly how I feel about the upcoming civil war with the settlers. nt

[oberliner]

121. Why would there be a civil war with the settlers?

One would think that the settlers would be quite happy with the current Israeli government.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

122. Well those of us who hope for a 2-state solution certainly foresee the possibility.

But if you've given up hope for peace, then yes, the settlers are probably having a circle jerk.

[oberliner]

124. I totally disagree

Most of us who hope for a 2-state solution do not include an Israeli civil war as part of that process.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

126. Thinking back to the 60 minutes piece Bob Simon did, you should prepare yourself for that

possibility.

[Ken Burch]

140. That's only as long as that or any other government continues to abet the settlement project

Continues to accept the argument that because of events thousands of years ago that the settlers have the right to swagger in and drive Palestinians off the land they've always worked, and continues to fight to the bitter end to prevent the establishment of a real Palestinian state.

All those settlers will take up arms against the Israeli government should it ever actually do the decent thing and let the Palestinians have all the West Bank, even though Palestinians are morally entitled to it.

[eyl]

104. If the land is bought, how is it stealing? n/t

[GoesTo11]

117. The same way it was stealing when Jews settled in Palestine in the early 1900s

after buying land.

[eyl]

134. Oh? And that was stealing because..? n/t

[GoesTo11]

138. Good point.

[geek tragedy]

19. It's an anti-settlement policy.

Because wherever Israelis settle in the West Bank, a checkpoints are sure to follow.

It's an appalling policy, but let's not consider it in a vaccum.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

24. What's the difference in this case? If an American Jew from Brooklyn wants to buy

land outside Ramallah, what purpose could that possibly be for?

[Jim Sagle]

33. Yeah, fuck'm. He's just a Brooklyn bum anyhow.

BTW, how's that anti-apartheid thing goin', haw haw haw? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[ProgressiveMuslim]

36. Thanks for asking, Jimbo! 21% of exporters affected. I call that progress!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=268471&mesg_id=268471

[Jim Sagle]

69. Proud of being a stinking hypocrrite, aren't you?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

75. I'm proud of not having a trash mouth, that's for sure. And proud of the people of

Palestine, who take a licking and keep on ticking!

[Jim Sagle]

77. I'll take that as a "Yes."

[ProgressiveMuslim]

83. What happened to the "bomb" comment, Jimbo?

[Jim Sagle]

85. I came up with a better one.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

91. LOL! You're always good for a laugh. Thanks Jimbo!

[Jim Sagle]

106. And you're even better for a display of venomous hypocrisy.

In the ongoing struggle to make the world safe, every post by you is a teaching moment. Don't ever change.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

109. Just here to remind ya that everybody bleeds red, my friend! nt

[Jim Sagle]

123. I see...you're my conscience. Riiiiiiiight.

And yet the amazing hypocrisy never goes away.

[Ken Burch]

143. Again, Progressive Muslim has done nothing to deserve your hate.

She is right to point out that the status quo is an inherent injustice to Palestinians.

[Ken Burch]

142. Progressive Muslim has never been a hypocrite on anything.

She did nothing to deserve your abuse right there.

[Ken Burch]

141. JIm, even you can't actually be happy that a Palestinian state is nowhere near being established

The oppression of Palestinians endangers Israel and innocent Israelis every day, by continuing to inflame the justified rage of the Palestinian people.

Why on Earth would you be down with the status quo?

[Behind the Aegis]

5. Conflate much?

[Igel]

7. So, let me get this right.

If a Muslim Arab from N. Israel decided to move to the West Bank and tried to buy land, whoever sold it to him would be committing high treason and could be executed for the act?

Then let's consider another scenario. Say a Jewish woman from France were to marry a French Palestinian emigre and the two of them, under his name, applied to move to the West Bank for their retirement. Suppose this was approved and as they arrived in Ramallah he dies in a car crash. They had sufficient funds for their retirement, plus her French retirement pension, and they had no children. She's now authorized to live in the West Bank--surely nobody would revoke the authorization of a widow--so there's no problem selling her land because that wouldn't contravene the fatwa. Right? After all, she may be Jewish but she's not Israeli.

That *is* what you're saying by insisting on "Israeli", as opposed to "Jew"?

Oddly, I think the judge would say otherwise--that the fatwa doesn't apply to the Israeli but does apply to the Frenchwoman.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

29. First of all, the gov't of Israel would likely deny her the ability to LIVE in the WB...

just like they did me.

[Idealism]

9. Can Palestinians buy Israeli land?

[Behind the Aegis]

10. In some cases.

[Idealism]

12. Would that be only in certain areas? Or does refugee status play into it?

By areas, I guess I am trying to say does it pertain to East Jerusalem

[Behind the Aegis]

13. Only in certain areas.

Very little of Israel is privately owned. Those areas (and I don't know that it is geographically bound, therefore I can't address if East Jerusalem has privately owned land) can be sold to whomever.

[Idealism]

14. You are talking about "Israeli lands" right?

That the State owns and basically leases out to Israeli's or do they transfer deeds, too?

[Behind the Aegis]

15. No.

I am talking about privately owned land, not leased.

Edit: spelling error

[Idealism]

16. Thanks for taking the time.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. You're very welcome.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. Can Palestinians lease Israeli land?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

40. BTA: Addressing you directly. Can Palestinians lease Israeli land?

[number6]

89. I notice BTA didn't answer your Question

wonder why ;)

[Behind the Aegis]

90. Because I thought it already been answered, genius.

[Behind the Aegis]

92. I don't know. Can Russians, Chinese, Nigerians, lease Israeli land?

[shaayecanaan]

56. Not really, no...

Many European Jews have bought real estate in Israel. The environment is quite permissive for foreign investment. It becomes markedly less so if one is Arab. Foreigners can buy land in Israel but the foreign investment agency has the discretion of preventing any particular transfer of land - which it frequently does in the case of an Arab individual or a company with an Arab sounding name. Also municipal authorities will generally refuse to sell or lease to Arabs.

The way Arabs of all stripes get around this is usually by incorporating a European company, and appointing a Jewish buying agent. Calling the company something like "Bernstein and Bergstrom, LLC" usually helps, since most Israeli Jews will refuse to sell to Arabs.

Recently rich Saudis as well as Palestinian emigres have managed to purchase a fair chunk of the Jaffa beachfront this way, some of it from Israeli Arabs who for their part generally refuse to sell to Jews.

To answer your question:- Palestinians living in the West Bank outside east Jerusalem are effectively unable to purchase land in Israel, AFAIK.

Further, non-Jews of any kind are prohibited from buying real estate in much of west Jerusalem. Non-Jews are also prohibited from buying JNF land which accounts for 13% of the whole of Israel. On the other hand, Jews are permitted to buy where they like, including in Arab East Jerusalem.

[eyl]

103. Actually, Jews are equally prohibited

from buying JNF land and though the JNF's formal guidelines do prohibit leasing land to non-Jews, in practise they do so.

[azurnoir]

18. Two questions

Is the PA a secular organization?

Isn't a fatwa a religious edict?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. I noticed that too...really takes another swipe and the independence of the PA from the mullahs

[azurnoir]

21. Well that's a possibility n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. Hey "professor:" "Mullahs" aren't really a feature of Palestinian political life.

Palestine does not equal Iran does not equal the Taliban.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. Then who issued the fatwa being cited

[ProgressiveMuslim]

31. A Sheik. I'll ask you as well:

You honestly expect the Palestinian legal system to aid and abet Israel's 40+ year illegal occupation?

I certainly consider it treason, and I'm a reasonably secular modern woman.


Guess you can't really blame "the Mullahs."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. When the PA cites religion based directives their claims of secularism in civil matters look silly

A sheikh can also issue them, but they are religious in nature. Also the term sheikh is often used with religious elders including mullahs, not just secular ones.

I happen to believe in non-discrimination in housing, marriage, sexual preference, and just about everything else. If the PA had said no foreign owned property as Mexico used to, that would be one thing. To ban sale only to Jews,including Jewish Palestinians, is rank discrimination. How can anyone be a progressive and support that kind of bigotry?

FWIW, I have asked some friends check into who issued the original fatwa and who has endorsed it subsequently.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

34. Sorry I just spit coffee all over my monitor. Do you believe Palestinians should be allowed to live

in Gilo and Har Homa, and Beit El and Ariel and Maale Adumim, and French Hill?

The PA are spineless bastards who should have the courage to say: no sale! We don't need a shiek or a fatwa to illustrate treason.

[oberliner]

37. How does this gibe with your support of the one-state solution?

If you support the idea of the death penalty for Palestinians who sell land to Jews, how are you also able to imagine a solution where Israelis and Palestinians share a single state?

Decisions like this do not bode well for a single-state solution (nor do decisions on the Israeli side).

Sometimes it seems that you advocate separation and lack of contact between Israelis and Palestinians.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

38. I don't support the death penalty anywhere. My post stating that was deleted.

(no censorship here though, is there?)

I think Palestinians who knowingly sell land to potential apartheid recipients are committing treason of the highest order.

I think the mind games you all play -- that selling land to settlers is "contact" -- is really pretty sick.

There already IS one state -- one state with democracy and full rights for Jews, fewer rights for Arabs in side the green line and basically NO rights for Arabs in the WB. Those in the Gaza Ghetto aren't even counted as human beings, are they?

You who expand your energy to defend/minimize/mischaracterize the behavior of the apartheid regime in Israel should be ashamed of yourselves.

[oberliner]

41. In response to your points

Playing music for elderly Holocaust survivors is "contact" - that you opposed that interaction is something I am still shocked and saddened by.

Maintaining a law that makes it illegal to sell land to Jewish people on penalty of death is something that I consider to be quite extreme - to make this action worthy of death.

You (and others) have repeated this idea that there already is one state - but the issue is that there is a state and there are territories that are not recognized as being part of any state (Israel or otherwise). Thus the talk of two-state solution vs. one-state solution is in relation to that territory. Should that territory be combined with what is now Israel to form one state together (the one-state solution) or should that territory become its own independent state living next to Israel (the two-state solution).

I would support the latter of these options. I wish we could all work together to help make this a reality!

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

45. If "contact" is the goal, the gov't of Israel (or JNF) should lease some land to the homeless

From Gaza.

Think of all the rich contact that could result!

Can you please tell me why this isn't being done today?

[oberliner]

50. You support Israel forcibly relocating Gazans into Israel?

That seems really strange.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

51. WTF are you talking about? I suggested that if mutual contact is such a noble goal

that Palestinian should sell land to Jewish Israelis, that perhaps the courtesy be extended to those Palestinians made homeless by the IDF.

Don't you agree that would be appropriate?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

53. If mutual contact is so critical, why not allow the refugees back to the land that was stolen from

them?

[oberliner]

60. That should definitely be a component of the agreement

Certainly that issue cannot be completely ignored if any agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians is to be a lasting one. Hopefully a compromise can be reached between the two sides that is mutually acceptable.

I would remind you that there are many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in Israel so the contact is already ongoing.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

63. Perhaps sale of land to Jews could also be a component of the agreement.

There aren't Gazans living in Israel, though.

[oberliner]

65. If a Gazan is someone who lives in Gaza I'm not sure how a Gazan could be living in Israel

There is a great deal more intermingling in Israel than in Gaza between people who consider themselves Palestinian and people who consider themselves Israeli - would you agree?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

66. I am not following you. I'm saying since there are so many homeless Gazans (at the hand of Israel)

and since you're so interested in mutual contact, perhaps those Gazans whose homes were destroyted would be allow to having housing in Israel.

Any chance of that happening, given Israel's dedication to non-discrimination and all..

[ProgressiveMuslim]

67. Oh, and since BTA is not around, can you answer: Can Palestinians lease Israeli land?

Can Israeli Arabs?

[oberliner]

70. Any Israeli citizen can lease Israeli land regardless of their religion or ethnicity

Here's a link to the English version of the Israeli Land Administration website:

http://www.mmi.gov.il/Envelope/indexeng.asp

[ProgressiveMuslim]

72. Is it legal for Palestinians to lease Israeli land?

[Behind the Aegis]

93. Is it legal for any other nationality to lease Israeli land?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

73. Why then do Arabs live mostly segregated in towns with inferior schools and services?

[oberliner]

48. It is interesting to see how your opinions have evolved regarding Israelis and Jews

When you first started posting here it seemed like you went out of your way to distinguish between Israelis and Jews but that seems to have gradually ceased to be the case. Perhaps it is connected to your embrace of the opinions of people like Philip Weiss whose blog you've frequently recommended.

Your subject line talks about the settling of Jewish people in WB in Gaza but there is no settling of Jewish people in Gaza going on and all of the Jewish people who did settle in Gaza have been forcibly removed from Gaza by Israel and now there are no Jewish people in Gaza so I am not sure why you included Gaza in that statement.

As for the West Bank, there are people who believe it is important for Jews to live in those areas since those people believe that those lands figure prominently into the Biblical history of the Jewish people.

I am completely against these settlements and have stated repeatedly that I believe they should be removed just as the Gaza settlements were removed. Alternatively, some of them can be exchanged for land within Israel if the Palestinian and Israeli leadership were to agree to such an arrangement.

You have made it clear that you are not comfortable with the existence of a Jewish state. Based on your statements it does not appear that you would be happy with any sort of peace agreement that results in such a state continuing to exist. It appears that you wish to see such a state "vanish from the pages of time" so to speak.

Certainly you are entitled to hold this opinion (and correct me if I am wrong in my assessment), however, this puts you at odds with those of do not wish to see Israel eliminated as a country - this would include President Obama, every Democrat in Congress, and pretty much everyone associated with the Democratic Party in any way, including myself.

If you want to work towards bringing an end to the occupation and an end to the settlements, and to reaching a real and lasting peace between Israel and a newly created, viable Palestinian state along the lines of the Geneva Accords then I would be proud to be your ally in that struggle.

If your goal is the elimination of the Jewish state then I would have to oppose your efforts.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

58. To make my position 100% crystal clear.

I would prefer 2 states. I demonstrated that already.

A second-best option would be one state with equal rights for all.

The status quo, which is one apartheid state with no rights for Palestinians is simply not acceptable.

Oberliner, it's shocking to me that you equate my rejection of apartheid with rejection of Israel. I wasn't aware you equated the two.

[oberliner]

59. My apologies

I obviously have read things into your posts that were not intended. I apologize for misrepresenting your position.

I agree that the status quo is not acceptable.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. To be fair, Oberliner...

When you first started posting here it seemed like you went out of your way to distinguish between Israelis and Jews but that seems to have gradually ceased to be the case. Perhaps it is connected to your embrace of the opinions of people like Philip Weiss whose blog you've frequently recommended.

Or perhaps it could be because there's quite a few 'supporters' of Israel who on many occassions in this forum fail to distinguish between Israelis and Jews?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

57. Thanks VC. And in particular this is a thread that claims that Jews are being discriminated against

as Jews. But those same people fail to recognize the benefits those same citizens get in Israel.

[oberliner]

61. Good point

Those folks out to be careful about that sort of thing.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. I wasn't going to bother with this thread, but...

..even though a story similar to this one gets posted every now and again and been done to death, I do have a question for you...

Maintaining a law that makes it illegal to sell land to Jewish people on penalty of death is something that I consider to be quite extreme - to make this action worthy of death.

I think it's pretty obvious to most people that if this law exists with that wording (and for the record, I do find a ban on selling land to any ethnic group to be wrong), the motivation behind it is to stop unscrupulous settlers from buying land and then claiming the sale was legitimate. I totally understand the frustration there'd be about trying to combat this, even though I suspect that when it comes to occupied territory, land sales to citizens of the occupying power aren't viewed as legitimate anyway.
So my question to you is how do you think this law should be worded to combat the sale of land to settlers?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

47. And it usually pops up after some particularly heinous behaviors on the part of Israel, doesn't it?

[oberliner]

49. Not sure how the law could be worded

A two-state solution would theoretically make this a non-issue.

But to your question, I don't really have an answer - though, at the very least, I would think they could lessen the punishment to something not as severe as the death penalty.

[eyl]

105. If the bought land than presumably the sale was legitimate?

or are you arguing that any sale of land to settlers is illegitimate by nature?

[Douglas Carpenter]

108. ALL settlers anywhere in Occupied Territories are illegal under international law.

This is not even debatable among sane and rational people - and never has been.

Theodore Meron, the Israeli Foreign Ministry legal adviser notified the Israeli government of these fact way back in September of 1967:

"The declaration by Theodor Meron, the Israeli Foreign Ministry's legal adviser at the time and today one of the world's leading international jurists, is a serious blow to Israel's persistent argument that the settlements do not violate international law, particularly as Israel prepares to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the war in June 1967.

The legal opinion, a copy of which has been obtained by The Independent, was marked "Top Secret" and "Extremely Urgent" and reached the unequivocal conclusion, in the words of its author's summary, "that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

Judge Meron, president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia until 2005, said that, after 40 years of Jewish settlement growth in the West Bank - one of the main problems to be solved in any peace deal: " I believe that I would have given the same opinion today."

Judge Meron, a holocaust survivor, also sheds new light on the aftermath of the 1967 war by disclosing that the Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, was " sympathetic" to his view that civilian settlement would directly conflict with the Hague and Geneva conventions governing the conduct of occupying powers"

The declaration by Theodor Meron, the Israeli Foreign Ministry's legal adviser at the time and today one of the world's leading international jurists, is a serious blow to Israel's persistent argument that the settlements do not violate international law, particularly as Israel prepares to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the war in June 1967.

The legal opinion, a copy of which has been obtained by The Independent, was marked "Top Secret" and "Extremely Urgent" and reached the unequivocal conclusion, in the words of its author's summary, "that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

Judge Meron, president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia until 2005, said that, after 40 years of Jewish settlement growth in the West Bank - one of the main problems to be solved in any peace deal: " I believe that I would have given the same opinion today."

Judge Meron, a holocaust survivor, also sheds new light on the aftermath of the 1967 war by disclosing that the Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, was " sympathetic" to his view that civilian settlement would directly conflict with the Hague and Geneva conventions governing the conduct of occupying powers"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/secret-memo-shows-israel-knew-six-day-war-was-illegal-450410.html

-------------------------



Here are just some of the many UN Security Council Resolutions affirming the recognition by the virtually the entire international community that the territories are OCCUPIED Arab land and illegality nature of the settlements:

Resolution 252 (1968)
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.

267 (1969)
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

271 (1969)
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers

298 (1971)
Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

446 (1979)
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."

452 (1979)
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

465 (1980)
Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy.

484 (1980)
Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

592 (1986)
Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.

672 (1990) Israel
Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

673 (1990) Israel
Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.

681 (1990) Israel
Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

------------------------------------

EVEN the one dissenting judge in the July 2002 case regarding the Wall -agreed that any part of the wall that was built to protect settlement is illegal. Thus any protection of the settlements or the settlers by the Israeli state is illegal under international law.

Out of 15 distinguished international jurist representing 15 different countries, 14 agreed that the wall was completely illegal and the one dissenting jurist, Judge Buergenthal representing the United States ruled that those parts of the Wall built to protect the settlements are ipso facto illegal because the settlements themselves are illegal:

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh141.htm#_ednref2

.
" Status of territory and applicable law (Paras. 70-106)

[eyl]

111. Hmm...So essentially you're saying that

no-one can legitimately purchase land in a nationality he is not a member of?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

113. Eyl, do you believe it is incumbent upon Palestinians to sell land to their occupiers?

[eyl]

135. I don't recall suggesting

they are obligated to sell land to anyone

[ProgressiveMuslim]

137. So they have the right to pass laws governing land in their territory. Just like Israel.

Which doesn't really sell land to anyone do they?

They certainly don't lease equally.

So what's the problem?

[eyl]

170. Shall I take it, then,

that you have no problem with Israel "not leasing equally"?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

174. Do you have a problem with Israel's Jim Crow policies?

What I have a problem with is rank hypocrisy. Israel operates four different sets of laws and realities -- one for Jews, one for Arabs inside the Green Line, one for Palestinians on the WB and one for Gaza.

I can't believe that this same county and its supporters have the gall to criticize Palestinians choosing to protect their land. That the death penalty is attached to this law (which I don't support anywhere, btw) bespeaks the SEVERITY of the threat as perceived in Palestine.

This is not about how much they "hate" Jews. This is about the depth of the threat that is perceived.

And that threat is entirely real; their fear is justified.

[eyl]

194. asdf

you're the one speaking out in support of this law. So I just want to understand why you feel it's legitimate for the PA to discriminate in land purchases, but not for Israel.

[shaayecanaan]

149. Yes

That is generally the case. Any foreigner wanting to purchase land in Australia, for example, must obtain the permission of the Foreign Investment Review Board - normally, in the case of existing residential houses, that permission will be refused.

There are similar restrictions in any given country. The problem is that the Palestinians do not have a functional state, and so are unable to prevent Israelis acquiring land.

[Ken Burch]

153. It's not that. It's about people purchasing land in a place where they don't live

but where an army they support is maintaining a brutal and completely unjustified military occupation.

There's a MASSIVE difference between that and barring anyone from purchasing land "in a nationality he is not a member of".

If the Zionist project had ever, EVER tried to deal with Palestinians in a humane, respectful manner, rather than with violent brutality and with the infamous denials that Palestine and Palestinians actually EXIST, this would be a far different situation and laws like this wouldn't even have been considered.

It is not discrimination or prejudice to prevent those aligned with your oppressors from purchasing(and let's be realistic, often as not FORCING you to sell)your land to them. And the use of phrases like "Judenrein", with its false implication that Palestinians are the moral equivalents of Nazis(something that has ALWAYS been a despicable lie)must stop and stop now if there is ever to be peace and justice in this situation.

OK?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

35. I'll ask all of you who are clucking your tongues: do you actually expect the gov't of

Palestine to aid and abet Israel's illegal occupation by selling land to those who will have special apartheid rights?

The cognitive dissonance here is mind-blowing.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

39. A picture's worth a thousand words: Here's the map that shows why

Palestinians feel as they do.


http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/270-palestines-island-paradise-now-with-a-word-from-its-creator/

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

125. all Jews are not settlers or ocupiers, it's a racist proclamation

It doesn't distinguish between the most hardcore settlers and anti-zionist Jews like Norm Finkelstein. All Jews are prohibited. And what's worse is that Jews 70 years ago were discriminated against in the very same ways WRT buying Palestinian land, way before there was any occupation. Many anti-zionists now still think those deals cut 70-100 years ago were somehow illegal or underhanded. It's racist to the max.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

127. Palestinians were not the ones who blurred the distinction between nation, religion and ethnic group

They are simply responding to the very harsh reality of life under Israeli occupation.

If there were no law of return granting automatic citizenship to any person born of a Jewish mother, I'm sure the Palestinian law would read differently.

Don't you agree it's quite absurd for a nation which brutally occupies a civilian populaton has the temerity to complain that their victims don't show proper sensitivity to them?

I find that laughable!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

128. And since you're all about non-discrimination in land sale, why not allow the refugees who were

forcibily expelled to return.

Think of the rich cultural exchange!

[Vegasaurus]

130. How about the Jews who were forced out of their homes in Arab lands

and had their land and possessions stolen from them by the Arabs?

Would you like to allow those people to return to claim their former homes (or at least get compensated, which they never were)?

That's 850,000 people.

Do you care about their loss of land?

Of course not.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

131. Let's allow all refugees to return to their lands. Do you agree with that?

[Vegasaurus]

146. Do YOU really agree with that

and more importantly, do you think there would be any support for such a position in the Arab world?

Considering that Israelis cannot even visit a number of these countries, I find the position doubtful at best.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

151. The group what would have kinipshins is Israel. But I suspect you already know that ;)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

132. Shira, please don't avoid the question!

[shira]

157. you wrote in an earlier post that you don't give a crap about my opinions....so why

are you so interested now?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

175. LOL. We all know why you won't/can't answer.

[shira]

176. already did reply in #156 right below

It's tough facing the facts, isn't it?

[shira]

156. you're still ignoring the fact that people today have problems with Jews from 100 years ago

buying land from Ottoman and Arab owners of that time. You ignore the fact that Arabs from 80 years ago had problems with Jewish immigration into the land. It's always been racist discrimination.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

178. Oh... so Palestinians are supposed to forget Israel's crimes of YESTERDAY

and sell land to the settlers who would erase them....when you can't forget "crimes" from 100 years ago?

Oy! The hypocrisy!

[shira]

182. just pointing out that this policy of no land to Jews has always been ugly and bigoted

today is no different than 100 years ago, and you know it. Let's not pretend otherwise.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

183. So is this your admission that Zionists "acquired" land by means than other legal purchase?

Why Shira... .next you're be admitting to land acquisition strategies like those employed in places like Deir Yassein.

[shira]

184. nope

they bought land at very high prices from the Turks in control at the time. Do you think Jews should have been banned from buying land back then, or immigrating into the land?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

187. The problem then wasn't legal land sale. In 1947 Jews only owned 7% of the land of Palestine.

The problem wasn't land purchase. It was the land grab of 1947/1948. It was the UN pledging land they had no right to pledge. It was the armed forces of the Yishuv that stole land they had not right to. It was the policies of terror and fear that drove 750,000 people off their land. It was the destruction of 400 villages -- an attempt to erase history.

Do I wish European colonialists hadn't stolen the land? Sure.

Do you admit to the crimes committed against the people of Palestine in those years?

[eyl]

193. Of course, you've left out

that the Palesetinians owned about 20% of the land, not >90% as you're implying

[ProgressiveMuslim]

55. Do those of you clucking your tongues think Palestians refugees should be able to get their

land back?

Since you are all for non-discrimination by religion and ethnicity and all...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

62. Massively, massively disproportionate.

I can perfectly well see why the PA would want to ban selling land to Israelis, and while I think it's wrong of them to make it a ban on "Jews" rather than "Israelis" I can understand it - it's effectively collaboration with the enemy in a time of war.

But killing people for doing so is completely unjustifiable and wrong.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

64. The problem comes with the law of return for Jews. Since any Jew can immediately claim Israeli

citizenship, the distinction in this instance is meaningless.

Don't you agree?

From my POV, Israel enacts laws that favor only Jewish people, and then its supporters complain when Palestinians respond in such a way that must factor in that inequity.... and Palestinians are the discriminators? Hardly!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

71. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I have repeatedly criticised Israel for its racist immigration policies, and this policy is wrong for exactly the same reasons.

I don't imagine there can be many Jews who would want to live as Palestinians rather than Israelis, but those who do should be permitted to.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

74. Are you opposed to all borders? Just curious.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

76. Not seriously.

I'm no great fan of the idea of the nation state, but it's not something I worry about greatly - they're not going to go away.

But that's nothing to do with explicitly racist laws like this one. I think a law forbidding Palestinians from selling land to Israelis makes a lot of sense, but not one forbidding them from selling land to Jews.

And I certainly don't think such a law should be capital.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

78. Given the Law of return, what's the dif?

Otherwise the nutty settler from NY moves to the WB, then announces his intention to become an Israeli citizen. Next the IDF if there to protect him.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

81. The difference is that this effects Jews who aren't nutty settlers.

I fully support the Palestinians passing laws to stop settlers buying their country for Israel.

I don't support them using race as a criterion for such laws. They should criminalise behaviours instead.

It's *exactly* the same issue as Israel's racist "right of return", I think.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

82. Well, Moskovitz certainly didn't broadcast that he'd be building settlements either.

I am just asking you that view this from the Palestinian POV which is to say, that these laws come not out of hateful racism, but out of the need to keep what little land remains.

[Behind the Aegis]

95. Speaking of "mind-blowing cognitive dissonance"

"the Palestinian POV which is to say, that these laws come not out of hateful racism, but out of the need to keep what little land remains."

[ProgressiveMuslim]

110. Your point is... what?

Your ongoing campaign to smear Palestinians as anti-semites is pretty pathetic.

There is plenty of reason for Palestinians to guard themselves against Zionist expansion.

[Behind the Aegis]

118. Classic strawman.

But given your other post, not unexpected.

[Ken Burch]

144. It can never be racist to make laws against your oppressor

And any Israeli who attempts to buy land in the West Bank HAS to be considered an oppressor. There can't be an honorable reason for such a person to do so.

This isn't about discrimination, it isn't a civil rights issue. It's about the right of one people not to have their land taken from them. What part of that can you not understand?

Israel wouldn't need a single hectare of land outside the pre-1967 lines if only the Israeli government started treating Palestinians as human beings. Peace comes through justice.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

147. But "Jew" is not the same thing as Israeli.

I find it hard to imagine that any Jew who wasn't part of the settler movement and who genuinely wanted to be a Palestinian would buy land in Palestine, but the law should be phrased that if hypothetically one did then they would not be blocked on account of their race.

It's exactly the same issue as the "right of return".

[Ken Burch]

150. It would be better for them to have phrased it differently

But I think they were working on the assumption that no Jewish person who wasn't ideologically aligned with the settler movement would have been buying land in Palestine.

As Progressive Muslim and I(among others)pointed out, a progressive Israeli or a humanistic Diaspora Jew wouldn't think of buying such land at this point.

So the situation of an "innocent" land transaction, as they see it, simply doesn't exist.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

152. 100% spot on.

The fact that these guys can't see the rank hypocrisy in this situation is mind blowing to me.

The depth of denial about the brual nature of Israel's violent military supression of Palestine is staggering. They really don't get it.

[Behind the Aegis]

159. Perhaps in your world.

But, bigotry doesn't change in the real world. Basically, you are justifying bigotry because it meets your needs. This may come as a shock, but "Israeli" and "Jew" aren't interchangeable. Do read the article again and stop making excuses for bigotry.

[Ken Burch]

160. It's only bigotry when it's the powerful inflicting it on the powerless.

A country that has another country under military occupation can never fairly claim to be the victims of bigotry on the part of those who are occupied.

And you know perfectly well that Palestinian resistance to Israel has never been about Israel being a place for Jews. It's been about having their land occupied. They'd have done everything they did if the occupiers had been U.S. Christians or even other Arabs. The Ottoman did hold nominal sovereignty over the place, but never sent in a million Turks to drive Palestinians out of their homes.

And I know that "Israeli" and "Jew" are not interchangeable, but the only people who'd be buying land in this context would be extreme right-wing Zionist revanchists who wanted to make sure that Palestinians had no land left to build their state. It would never be B'tselem members, or Peace Now activists, or supporters of Meretz, or subscribers to TIKKUN that would be involved here.

I oppose the death penalty, but you're in self-righteous denial if you think that this law would affect anyone, Jewish or not, who had any positive intentions. It's about stopping(and in a mistaken way)an activity that every Palestinian would naturally regard as collaboration with the enemy.

[Behind the Aegis]

161. So, you don't know the definition on bigotry and decide to use your own?

"It would never be B'tselem members, or Peace Now activists, or supporters of Meretz, or subscribers to TIKKUN that would be involved here." You can't know that with any certainty. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it a fact, it is still nothing more than opinion and speculation.

The only one in self-righteous denial is you, continuing to excuse bigotry because the ends justify the means.

"And you know perfectly well that Palestinian resistance to Israel has never been about Israel being a place for Jews. It's been about having their land occupied. They'd have done everything they did if the occupiers had been U.S. Christians or even other Arabs." Talk about denial.

[Ken Burch]

162. Get real, Aegis. It's been proved years and years ago that Palestinians

were not driven by hatred of Jews. Why can you not accept that anyone would resist anyone else who treated them as the Israeli government treats Palestinians?

They'd have done all of this if another group of Arabs had come in and shoved them out of their homes. They'd have done the same thing to the Ottoman if the Ottoman had imported a million Turks. It's just that, prior to 1900, everybody basically left Palestinians alone.

And why do you, as far as I know, never EVER call for a permanent moratorium on West Bank settlements and an end to collective punishment?

(If you do call for it, it's never turned up in any of your posts here).

I've said I'm against the death penalty.

I'd have argued, were I a Palestinian legislator, for some other penalty. But what you're not getting is that this is about not losing any more Palestinian land. And we CAN say for certain that no progressive, humane Israeli or any progressive, humane Diaspora person would lower themselves to trying to acquire Palestinian land. This is a certainty. Why would the question even be in your mind? There simply is no honorable reason, during the Occupation, for a non-Palestinian to try to acquire Palestinian land.

But it also goes without saying that this proposed law is not driven by bigotry. Nobody can't occupy somebody else's land and then say they're the victims of prejudice if those whose lands they occupy resist. Neither of us would accept that Tibetans are persecuting the Chinese, or that the Lakota oppressed General Custer.

[Behind the Aegis]

163. You get real, Burch.

Why can you not accept the reality of what is said by their leaders, their actions, and the actions of their Arab neighbors?

"There simply is no honorable reason, during the Occupation, for a non-Palestinian to try to acquire Palestinian land." And yet, that is not what the article addresses, now is it?

"But it also goes without saying that this proposed law is not driven by bigotry." No, what goes without saying is you are justifying bigotry. Do consult a dictionary and look up the word "bigotry."

[Ken Burch]

164. You take an exclusivist definition of bigotry

It was bigotry for rich country clubs in the U.S. to deny Jewish people memberships. It was bigotry for wealthy Americans to have restrictive covenants to keep Jews out of their neighborhoods. It was bigotry for Hitler to do what he did(aided as he was by IBM's punchcards and Prescott Bush's investments).

But what the IDF has done to Palestinians is ALSO bigotry. Home demolitions and collective punishment is also bigotry. Operation Cast Lead was also bigotry. Deir Yassin and Plan Dalet were also bigotry.

Stop acting like the victims of antisemitism automatically have it worse than any other group that has suffered. Native Americans, Africans brought here in slavery, victims of colonialism and greed in Latin America AND the Palestinians have it just as bad.

The answer is to fight for a world without suffering or exploitation. Not to privelege one group's suffering over all others.

Stop limiting your outrage to one people's pain.

[Behind the Aegis]

165. Making up definitions doesn't make them true.,

Stop with the fucking strawman shit!

"Stop acting like the victims of antisemitism automatically have it worse than any other group that has suffered." STRAWMAN

[Ken Burch]

166. Not a strawman at all.

You do thread after thread on antisemitism.

Yes, antisemitism is a loathesome thing.

No, it doesn't happen more than all other kinds of prejudice.

No, it isn't worse than all other forms of prejudice(all forms of prejudice are equally wrong and equally cruel).

And no, it probably wasn't(as you implied in another thread)history's FIRST example of prejudice.

There was almost certainly prejudice on the part of different nationalities, tribes or factions from the time we left the freaking CAVES. It's not as if, prior to the emergence of Judaism, no group of people EVER felt prejudice against another or treated another group unjustly or even tried or succeeded in the effort to wipe another people out. There's been genocide throughout history.)

What was done by Europeans to the First Nations of this continent was just as bad as antisemitism.

The killing of ten million Congolese by the Belgians was certainly just as bad as the Shoah.

Why don't you support a universalist crusade against all prejudice and exploitation, rather than going on and on and on about antisemitism(something that is loathesome, but not uniquely loathesome)as if it matters more than anyone else's suffering?

Your vision of what is and isn't injustice is so skewed and limited as to be unbelieveable. And it damn sure isn't Jewish. The true Jewish humanitarian vision, a vision I deeply admire, is to be in solidarity with ALL who suffer.

And it also means calling on the Israeli government to stop treating Palestinians as it treats them.

[Behind the Aegis]

167. Again, stop making things up.

You have mastered the art of straw, but it is very tiresome. The ends justify the means, therefore bigotry against Jews is OK. I am really sick of your bullshit strawmen. You are not interested in conversation or even debate only in creating false positions then condemning or taking them apart, that is the definition of a strawman. So, you can say you think it is a problem or as bad as other forms of bigotry, but I just don't believe you think that at all. So, you keeping making up positions and attacking them, it won't change the fact you are OK with an anti-Semitic law.

[Ken Burch]

168. I'm NOT actually ok with this law, because I'm against the death penalty

Which I've said repeatedly in this thread as you know.

But it's silly to call it "anti-Semitic" when what it actually is is a law punishing people collaborating with an Occupation. The fact that it involves a particular group is irrelevant.

Neither Israelis nor the world's Jewish communities are the oppressed side on the question of this excessive and stupid law. And this law does not justify what the Israeli military did to Gaza.

And it is not false to point out that you've started thread after thread about antisemitism, including thread after thread about EUROPEAN acts of antisemitism in the Israel/Palestine thread, which is inappropriate because those acts were committed in Europe by Europeans and are thus totally irrelevant to the Israel/Palestine situation.
If antisemitic acts occur in Europe, than Europeans and ONLY Europeans should be held accountable for them. Then cannot legitimately be used as part of the discussion of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinian people.

[Behind the Aegis]

169. Do get a dictionary.

Here is a free one: www.dictionary.com

"I'm NOT actually ok with this law, because I'm against the death penalty." I already knew this. It goes to show your bias.

"But it's silly to call it "anti-Semitic" when what it actually is is a law punishing people collaborating with an Occupation. The fact that it involves a particular group is irrelevant." What is silly is your continued defense of bigotry and pretending it isn't an attempt to excuse bigotry.

"Neither Israelis nor the world's Jewish communities are the oppressed side on the question of this excessive and stupid law." Do look up the definitions of bigotry and anti-Semitism.

"And this law does not justify what the Israeli military did to Gaza. " Confusing Cause and Effect.

"And it is not false to point out that you've started thread after thread about antisemitism, including thread after thread about EUROPEAN acts of antisemitism in the Israel/Palestine thread, which is inappropriate because those acts were committed in Europe by Europeans and are thus totally irrelevant to the Israel/Palestine situation. " It is false because I have started numerous threads on a variety of topics, including anti-Semitism, but I have not, as you indicate started thread after thread, nor have I posted thread after thread on European acts of anti-Semitism in this forum.

"If antisemitic acts occur in Europe, than Europeans and ONLY Europeans should be held accountable for them. Then cannot legitimately be used as part of the discussion of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinian people." They most certainly can be used as discussion items in the I/P conflict when that conflict is drawn as a primary corollary for the INCREASE in anti-Semitism.

[Boojatta]

195. "If antisemitic acts occur in Europe...

... cannot legitimately be used as part of the discussion of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinian people."

If they cannot legitimately be used as part of the discussion of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinian people, then what does the following mean?

And I know that "Israeli" and "Jew" are not interchangeable, but the only people who'd be buying land in this context would be extreme right-wing Zionist revanchists who wanted to make sure that Palestinians had no land left to build their state. (If I'm not mistaken, these are your exact words from elsewhere in this thread.)

Have you established that there aren't any Jewish people from Europe "who'd be buying land in this context"? If you haven't established that, then your "extreme right-wing Zionist revanchists" label potentially applies to Jewish people from Europe. How do you know that they want to make sure that Palestinians have no land left to build their state? Presumably you have some way of knowing that antisemitic acts in Europe couldn't possibly be sufficient motivation. However, you cannot explain why because to do so would violate your own rule against discussing antisemitic acts in Europe within the larger discussion about the dispute between Israel and the Palestinian people.

[Shaktimaan]

201. I know this is an old thread but I wanted to comment.

And any Israeli who attempts to buy land in the West Bank HAS to be considered an oppressor. There can't be an honorable reason for such a person to do so.

Sure there can! What if the Israeli in question was a Palestinian Arab? There's a reason that this law specifies Jews and not Israelis.

I don't see any way that anyone could look at this law and deduce that it is anything other than religious discrimination. Now you may feel that the discrimination is warranted in this case. The fact of the matter is that we are discussing a conflict between two separate ethnic groups; it is not surprising that laws and actions intended to protect each side's interests will likewise be split down ethnic lines. It is a matter of practicality, not necessarily racism or bigotry.

Another example of this kind of practical discrimination in action would be the Nakba. There's no question that it was ethnic cleansing and discriminatory. Likewise there is no question that it was a practical decision made to protect Israel. The Israeli Law of Return gives preference to Jews seeking to emigrate. I'm sure that the future state of Palestine will give preference to Palestinians.

That said, it is dishonest to describe this frightening Palestinian law as less than racist merely because the power dynamic favors Israel. According to that theory racism only exists in one direction. The law isn't based on racism, but not because Israel oppresses Palestinians. (After all, Druze Israelis oppress Palestinians no less than their Jewish counterparts but they are not mentioned by this law.) Just as Palestine has made laws against their oppressor, Israeli actions, such as refusing to allow Palestinian refugees to return, were not based on feelings of racism or bigotry but out of a desire for self-preservation.

Israel has nothing to fear from Israeli Arabs buying real estate in Israel and thus has enshrined their right to do so in law. Hopefully, once Palestine is an established state with immutable borders this law will become seen as an antiquated relic of another time. That said I still would not expect Palestine to grant a right of return to Jews who were expelled from their land in 1948. Just as I don't expect Israel to do the same for victims of the Nakba.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

148. Do you think the Israeli so-called "Right of return" is hateful racism too? N.T.

[Behind the Aegis]

158. No.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

180. What do you think makes one racist and the other not?

Obviously the "death penalty" aspect of this law is a big difference, but that's nothing to do with whether or not it's racial.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

189. I'd be interested in an answer to the above question, if anyone can provide one. N.T.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

179. Posted in wrong place, delete. N.T.

[LeftishBrit]

198. No. It would be hateful racism if ONLY Jews were allowed to immigrate...

but we know this isn't so.

Most countries show a preference in immigration policy for some national/ethnic groups over others, often those that have a previous connection with the country. Some have laws very similar to the Right of Return.

I don't see this as racism (unless all nationalism and border-restrictions are termed as such) and certainly not as hateful.

[Boojatta]

200. Are there any countries other than Israel that allow...

any people who are Jewish to enter and work, with only minor restrictions? For example, one restriction might be an exception to keep out some or all Jews who have criminal records.

If there are, then this fact should be publicized. Young Jewish people around the world would know that they have at least one option besides Israel, which after all doesn't have the peaceful history of a country like Switzerland. Publicizing such information would likely reduce the number of people (Jewish and non-Jewish) who will be injured or killed in Israel's future wars.

If there aren't any, then to say that it's hateful racism is to say that ...

... after a history that includes laws against Jews owning land in various countries for hundreds of years (preventing Jews from having a continuous tradition of farming, in contrast with Mennonites for example), and laws restricting entry by Jews into a wide variety of other occupations besides farming, and violence against Jews ...

... there must not even be one "shitty little country" that permits ordinary people who happen to be Jewish to enter and work. One little country is too many. Is the planet Earth too small to contain all of the Jewish people on it?

[azurnoir]

80. While I agree the wording of the law

"no sales to Jews", rather than Israeli's can be said to be discriminatory it is also true that there have been land West Bank land sales to American Jews who are buying the lands for what purpose?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

84. Palestinians were not the ones who blurred the distinction between nation, religion and ethnic group

They are simply responding to the very harsh reality of life under Israeli occupation.

I know you know that.

It just seems quite odd to me that that reality isn't clear as a bell to everyone.

If there were no law of return granting automatic citizenship to any person born of a Jewish mother, I'm sure the Palestinian law would read differently.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

79. A little context for the Palestinian hard-line position:

Settlers to move into E. J'lem police HQ

By Akiva Eldar, Haaretz Correspondent

Tags: Irving Moskowitz

Based on an agreement signed with former police commissioner Moshe Karadi, right-wing settlers will take up residence in a group of buildings in Jerusalem's predominantly Arab neighborhood Ras al-Amud in the next few days. The building had hitherto served as the Samaria and Judea District Police headquarters.

The buildings are slated to become the nucleus of a new Jewish neighborhood in the so-called Holy Basin area, the fate of which is supposed to be decided in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Police officials said yesterday that work began before Pesach on vacating the place, and that in the coming days they will finish moving the offices to a new facility built in controversial Area E1, which connects Jerusalem with Ma'aleh Adumim.
Advertisement

Concurrently, right-wing settler groups filed a request with the Jerusalem Planning and Construction Committee a few days ago to approve construction of a new neighborhood of 110 housing units on the vacated site.

The request states that the new neighborhood, Ma'aleh David, is intended to link up with the Ma'aleh Zeitim neighborhood, which was built in the heart of Ras al-Amud by tycoon Irving Moskowitz, with the encouragement of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert while he was mayor of Jerusalem.

In all, the neighborhoods of Ma'aleh David and Ma'aleh Zeitim are projected to house around 250 Jewish families in an area with 14,000 Arab residents.

Nadav Shragai, writing in Haaretz on January 8, reported that the right-wing groups active in "redeeming Jerusalem" by buying up Arab land were negotiating with the Bukharan community committee to purchase the land and building that housed the police's Samaria and Judea District headquarters, which were acquired by the committee during Ottoman rule.

Noga Ben David, one of the leaders of the community, declined yesterday to discuss whether right-wing settler groups are behind the deal, saying he prefers to remain silent until the police vacate the premises.

Under the contract the police signed with the Bukharan community in July 2005, a copy of which was obtained by Haaretz, the community committee undertakes to apply to the Civil Administration and arrange for 14 dunams of land to be allocated in Area E1 for building a replacement building for the police. The committee undertook to plan the replacement building and surrounding development at its own expense.

This barter arrangement allowed the police to finance the new headquarters while bypassing the Budget Law.

The Palestinian Authority's chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, told Haaretz yesterday that allowing right-wing settler groups to move into the old police station in Ras Al-Amud, as the nucleus for a new neighborhood, would undermine the peace talks.

As for the new police station in E1, strong American objections have kept Israeli governments in recent years from implementing the E1 plan, which effectively envisions annexing to Jerusalem a wide swath of land on the eastern side of the Green Line.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/978400.html



Fool 'em once shame on them...

[bemildred]

86. I'm just amazed at the levels of groveling duplicity that surround these things.

One ought to mention that there is the death penalty for lots of things in you are Palestinian.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

120. The twisted thinking that goes on to justify this nonsense is enlightening.

If Zionist supporters think Palestinians are "bigoted" for not selling land to potential settlers, how in the hell can one even address that insane POV?

Honestly? Do people actually believe Israel can do what it has done, rob the Palestinans of all that is has, and then expect to be WELCOMED into their neighborhoods?

It demonstrates a denial of reality that is frightening.

[cali]

129. wow. talk about twisted.

I think it's horrendous to impose the death sentence on anyone. I think it's particularly heinous to impose it for selling land.

And the fatwah isn't just against selling land to Israelis, dear, it's against selling it to Jews.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

133. Who, by virtue of the right of return, are automatically Isareli citizens.

Palestinians aren't the ones who blurred the distinction between religion and nationality, dearie.

[eyl]

136. Uh..no

the Law of Return allows them to claim citizenship - it does not automatically make them citizens.

Your argument otherwise is like claiming that I'm an American citizen because I could potentially immigrate there and nationalize.

[Ken Burch]

154. Do any of them ever get DENIED citizenship?

And why should those people automatically be given a position in Israeli society that priveleges them over the Arabs who lived there, even though it's almost impossible that any Arab ever did anything to them?

[eyl]

171. It's happened n/t

[Ken Burch]

172. Fair enough. Didn't know that.

Whoever got denied would have to be a wicked screwup.

[eyl]

173. I think the most famous case

was Meyer Lansky

[Ken Burch]

145. The only ones who'd possibly even try to buy land from Palestinians

Would be those who are right-wing extremists who want to build more settlements. Given that all settlement construction is an injustice against all Palestinians, why would you have any sympathy with such a person?

No ISM member would buy Palestinian land, nor any left-of-center Israeli, nor any Diaspora Jew with any humane values whatsoever. There shouldn't be the death penalty but nobody who was arrogant and racist enough to try to buy Palestinian land could possibly be considered an innocent victim.

[shira]

177. so what was the excuse prior to 1948, Ken?

when many people even now have problems with the way Jews acquired land legally before the establishment of Israel, or immigrated to Israel due mainly to persecution? Yes, Ken....people now still have problems with that, as though it was a big plan to steal Palestinian land well before the establishment of the state. As if Jews couldn't legally buy land back then or immigrate there due to persecution in Europe or other Arab lands.

What makes you think things are really any different now? Some wild hunch you can't support?

Also, please do a little research before claiming that hate was absent from Palestinians before 1948. Do you know anything about the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and his active role with Hitler during the WW2 years? Please learn something. He was Arafat's uncle and Arafat thought the world of him and praised him many times publicly.

[Ken Burch]

181. I didn't say hate was totally absent from Palestinians prior to 1948.

And as to that fascist swine the Grand Mufti(btw, Al-Husanyi was the only one who was EVER called the "Grand Mufti", the British added the grand to boost his already swollen ego)he was IMPOSED in the job by the British. Al-Husanyi finished a weak fourth place in the voting to choose the new Mufti in the early 1920's, and was forced into the position by Herbert Samuel.

He was a bastard, but you can't blame the Palestinians for his being a bastard. And no, his bastardy does NOT justify what was done to Palestinians in 1948. The solitary acts of the Grand Mufti are not the fault of Palestinians AS A COMMUNITY. And you know it.

As to the feeling there was a big plan to get Palestinian land...well, shira, didn't events kind of bear that out?



The truth is, while the survivors of Hitler's despicable acts had the right to be enraged at the people of Europe and the English-speaking world for not protecting them, the idea of moving them to a tiny strip of desert was probably the worst possible choice. And that choice also led to a horrible injustice being done to the Mizrahi, a group that had never historically been Zionist, in that the arrivals(and the Nakba)led to the Mizrahi being expelled and forced to move to the new state.

Also, the people that the Palestinians hated, if they did hate were the Ashkenazi newcomers, not the indigenous Jewish community that had lived in Palestine. With them, Palestinian Arabs more or less always had got along, until that relationship became a victim of the new situation.

And with the newcomers, the hatred was largely a result of the arrogance that the Zionist leadership displayed, demanding(as it did for much of the pre-1948 period)ALL of Palestine, with some of its crazier adherents actually demanding parts of Syria and Iraq. This hatred would have been extended equally to any other group. If your land is being taken, it's natural you won't love those who are taking it. Why SHOULD it have been any different than it would have been if any other group had shown up?
They'd have done the same under the Ottomans if the Pasha had imported a million Turks. They'd have done the same if the U.S. had imported a million Southern evangelicals to make it a "Christian homeland".

Thanks to the heroic writings of people like Tom Segev, almost all of the myths of 1948 have been discredited.

It's time to admit that it was always unfair to treat the Palestinians as if they were the moral equivalent of the Gestapo, shira. History proves that the Shoah, in terms of actual deeds, was the sole responsibility of EUROPEANS, and only EUROPEANS should ever have had to suffer for it.

What I don't understand in all this, shira, is why you still trust the establishment view of your country's leaders on this. Those leaders are the ones who've spent decades PREVENTING this war from ending. They're the ones whose political future depends on the "existential struggle" meme being perpetuated and the siege mentality continued. YOUR LEADERS NEED THE WAR TO JUST GO ON AND ON. Knowing that, why do you believe a word they say? The Israeli government is not on the side of the Israeli people. Before you come back with it, I agree that the Palestinian leadership hasn't always been on the Palestinian peoples's side, but we both know that leadership can't be brought down through military defeat, unless it is to be replaced by an even worse leadership. The only thing that CAN change it is for the Israeli government to cease the policy of collective punishment towards the Palestinian people. If it's never worked before, we both know it can't work now.

I work for an end to all hatred and exploitation. That's the struggle that will end antisemitism, not a meaningless territorial war in the service of what is now going to be a permanently right-wing state, as the last elections proved.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

186. Unless Shira shares the goal

of wanting endless conflict, and control over as much land as possible.

[Ken Burch]

188. Perhaps she still believes, in spite of her better intentions,

in the old Zionist maxim of "no choice".

I think shira is a decent person, and would personally do the right thing, but is too trusting in her country's leaders.

People go that route in a lot of countries.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

191. Shira is American.

You're generous.

[Ken Burch]

192. Really? I assumed, from the way that she posted, that she was Israeli.

Are you sure?

And, I'll send you a pm to explain where I'm coming from with shira in a moment.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

185. I CALL BULLSHIT ON THIS: Get your story straight Shira.

If Palestinians wouldn't sell land prior to 1948, how did Jewsin the Yishuv end up with so much?


Muslims, Christians and Jews lived pretty harmoniously in Palestine prior to the major influx of European colonialists. Turns out the Arabs in the early 1900s were pretty correct in the fear of what would come, weren't they?

Cut the shit, Shira.

[Ken Burch]

190. BTW, Yitzak Shamir and Lehi(The Stern Gang) were on relatively good terms with Hitler

From Wikipedia:

"When the Irgun split in 1940, Shamir sided with the most militant faction, Lehi, headed by Avraham Stern. This group has been described as a terrorist organization<1>. In secret contacts with German representatives at Beirut the group offered to open up a military front against the British in the Middle East in return for the expulsion (rather than extermination) of the Jewish population of Europe to Palestine.<2>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Shamir

Another source here:

http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/event.php?eid=458

A profile of Shamir by Lenni Brenner, which offers further corroboration.

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/15-shamir.htm

What Shamir did is actually a lot worse, if you think about it.

[Boojatta]

196. Did you mean...

nobody who was arrogant and racist enough to try to buy Palestinian land could possibly be considered an innocent victim.

... or did you mean this?

nobody who was arrogant and racist enough to try to sell Palestinian land could possibly be considered an innocent victim.

[Ken Burch]

155. The Israeli government just imposed and carried out the death sentence

on thousands of Gazans, many of them childen or the elderly.

Your concern about the death penalty(a penalty that's almost certain never to actually be carried out)is misplaced.

I'm against the death penalty to. But that isn't the real issue here, and you know it.

[Boojatta]

197. When Israelis are conscripted for military service...

and die while performing that military service, are they victims of a death sentence imposed and carried out by the Israeli government?

[number6]

87. Israelis don't buy land, they steal it,

and by the way how many arab settles get free land and houses.

>>> fucking ZERO !!! <<<

there should be no law against anyone, Muslim, Christain, Jew,
as far as home puchases go, especially Muslim and Christain Arabs
buying homes in Israel ...

one State, one man, one vote .....

[Sezu]

88. "They steal it" Could you be any more bigoted?m n/t

[number6]

94. could Israel be more Bigoted against

Palestinian Arabs ? I doubt it could be

[Behind the Aegis]

96. And that excuses bigoted remarks from you?

[number6]

99. do you understand the english langauge

and what the word bigot means ?

[Behind the Aegis]

100. Do you?

[number6]

101. Yep I do

;) :hi:

and by the way, If I said Israelis steal land, if could also mean Israeli Arabs, no

[number6]

97. did YOU read my Post ????

"there should be no law against anyone, Muslim, Christain, Jew,
as far as home puchases go, especially Muslim and Christain Arabs
buying homes in Israel ..."


see the FIRST line !!!!

>>"there should be no law against anyone, Muslim, Christain, Jew,<<

try reading comprehension

[ProgressiveMuslim]

115. This isn't stealing? Thousands of dunums confiscated for Israeli settler road near Nablus

Thousands of dunums confiscated for Israeli settler road near Nablus
Date: 02 / 04 / 2009 Time: 16:46



Nablus – Ma’an – Israeli authorities issued orders to confiscate more than one thousand dunums of Palestinian lands of the village of Qaryut south of Nablus, head of the villages and municipal affairs office in Nablus Ghassan Daghlas said on Thursday.

On the land a road will be constructed linking the three illegal settlements, He noted that “this decision aims at to construct a three kilometer road to link the Israeli illegal settlement of Shilo, and the illegal settlement outposts of Hayovel and a second known locally as the “Qaryut” outpost.

Daghlas noted that Israeli bulldozers had been surveying the area for days, and that there seemed to be a coordinated effort between soldiers and settlers, who constructed a road barrier near the village of Der Sharaf, while military crews expanded the Yitzhar road after confiscating Palestinian lands adjacent to it.

The village representative also mentioned that several home demolition orders were served in the past weeks in the nearby villages of Tana and At-Tawila, both south of Nablus.

http://maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=36839\


If that's not stealing, what is?

[TimesSquareCowboy]

202. Well, in any event, it couldn't be more true:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x275603

[Douglas Carpenter]

102. From: B'tselem LAND GRAB: Israel’s Settlement Policy in the West Bank

link to full report:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/200205_Land_Grab_Eng.doc

""Introduction

In December 2001, a long article appeared in Ha’aretz under the headline “Five Minutes from Kfar Saba – A Look at the Ari’el Region.” The article reviewed the real estate situation in a number of “communities” adjacent to the Trans-Samaria Highway in the vicinity of Ari’el. The article included the information that most of the land on which these “communities” were established are “state-owned land,” and that “despite the security problems and the depressed state of the real estate market, the situation in these locales is not as bad as might be expected.”

The perspective from which this article was written (the real estate market) and the terminology it employs largely reflect the process of the assimilation of the settlements into the State of Israel. As a result of this process, these settlements have become just another region of the State of Israel, where houses and apartments are constructed and offered to the general public according to free-market principles of supply and demand.

This deliberate and systematic process of assimilation obscures a number of fundamental truths about the settlements: the “communities” mentioned in the article are not part of the State of Israel, but are settlements established in the West Bank − an area that has been occupied territory since 1967. The fundamental truth is that the movement of Israeli citizens to houses and apartments offered by the real estate markets in these “communities” constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The fundamental truth is that the “state-owned” land mentioned in the article was seized from Palestinian residents by illegal and unfair proceedings. The fundamental truth is that the settlements have been a continuing source of violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, among them the right to freedom of movement, property, self-determination, and improvement in their standard of living. The fundamental truth is that the growth of these settlements is fueled not only by neutral forces of supply and demand, but primarily by a sophisticated governmental system designed to encourage Israeli citizens to live in the settlements. In essence, the process of assimilation blurs the fact that the settlement enterprise in the Occupied Territories has created a system of legally sanctioned separation based on discrimination that has, perhaps, no parallel anywhere in the world since the dismantling of the Apartheid regime in South Africa.

As part of the mechanism used to obscure these fundamental truths, the State of Israel makes a determined effort to conceal information relating to the settlements. In order to prepare this report, B’Tselem was obliged to engage in a protracted and exhaustive struggle with the Civil Administration to obtain maps marking the municipal boundaries of the settlements. This information, which is readily available in the case of local authorities within Israel, was eventually partially provided almost one year after the initial request, and only after B’Tselem threatened legal action.
The peace process between Israel and the Palestinians did not lead to the evacuation of even one settlement, and the settlements even grew substantially in area and population during this period. While at the end of 1993 (at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Principles) the population of the settlements in the West Bank (including settlements in East Jerusalem) totaled some 247,000, by the end of 2001 this figure had risen to 375,000.

The agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority entailed the transfer of certain powers to the PA; these powers apply in dozens of disconnected enclaves containing the majority of the Palestinian population. Since 2000, these enclaves, referred to as Areas A and B, have accounted for approximately forty percent of the area of the West Bank. Control of the remaining areas, including the roads providing transit between the enclaves, as well as points of departure from the West Bank, remains with Israel.

This report, which is the continuation of several reports published by B’Tselem in recent years, examines a number of aspects relating to Israeli policy toward the settlements in the West Bank and to the results of this policy in terms of human rights and international law. The report also relates to settlements in East Jerusalem that Israel established and officially annexed into Israel. Under international law, these areas are occupied territory whose status is the same as the rest of the West Bank.

This report does not relate to the settlements in the Gaza Strip. Though similar in many ways to their counterparts in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip settlements differ in several respects. For example, the legal framework in the Gaza Strip differs from that applying in the West Bank in various fields, including land laws; these differences are due to the different laws that were in effect in these areas prior to 1967.

This report comprises eight chapters.

• Chapter One presents a number of basic concepts on the principal plans implemented by the Israeli governments, the bureaucratic process of establishing new settlements, and the types of settlements.
• Chapter Two examines the status of the settlements and settlers according to international law and briefly surveys the violations of Palestinian human rights resulting from the establishment of the settlements.
• Chapter Three discusses the bureaucratic and legal apparatus used by Israel to seize control of land in the West Bank for the establishment and expansion of settlements. The chief component of this apparatus, and the main focus of the chapter, is the process of declaring and registering land as “state land.”
• Chapter Four reviews the changes in Israeli law that were adopted to annex the settlements into the State of Israel by turning them civilian enclaves within the occupied territory. This chapter also examines the structure of local government in the settlements in the context of municipal boundaries.
• Chapter Five examines the economic incentives Israel provides to settlers and settlements to encourage Israelis to move to the West Bank and to encourage those already living in the region to remain there.
• Chapter Six analyzes the planning mechanism in the West Bank applied by the Civil Administration, which is responsible for issuing building permits both in the settlements and in Palestinian communities. This mechanism plays a decisive role in the establishment and expansion of the settlements, and in limiting the development of Palestinian communities.
• Chapter Seven analyzes the map of the West Bank attached to this report. This analysis examines the layout of the settlements by area, noting some of the negative ramifications the settlements have on the human rights of the Palestinian population.
• Chapter Eight focuses in depth on the Ari’el settlement and the ramifications of its establishment on the adjacent Palestinian communities. This chapter also discusses the expected consequences of Ari’el’s expansion according to the current outline plan. "

link to full report:

http://www.btselem.org/Download/200205_Land_Grab_Eng.doc


.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

114. BTA, quit the silly games and respond to Doug's post, please.

Stealing.. Expropriation... land grab...

[number6]

98. for the record I'm against the death penalty

for selling houses and lands to Jews.

in any middle eastern country .....

[Crunchy Frog]

199. What would happen if a Jew tried to sell land in a WB settlement to a Palestinian?

Palestinians are perfectly free to purchase or lease land in Israel, let alone in settlements on the West Bank, right?