In brief, The most effective way for Palestinian Arabs to regain their individual property, is to stop killing Israelis and stop supporting the killing of Israelis.
The Israelis did in fact, more than once, make that specific offer to the Palestinian Arabs, if they were to stop killing Israelis. The Palestinian Arab leaders rejected that offer.
...you ignore how the State of Israel has stolen Palestinian land, and continues to occupy land owned by Palestinians...
November 21, 2006
Israeli Map Says West Bank Posts Sit on Arab Land
By STEVEN ERLANGER
JERUSALEM, Nov. 20 - An Israeli advocacy group, using maps and figures leaked from inside the government, says that 39 percent of the land held by Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank is privately owned by Palestinians.
Israel has long asserted that it fully respects Palestinian private property in the West Bank and only takes land there legally or, for security reasons, temporarily.
If big sections of those settlements are indeed privately held Palestinian land, that is bound to create embarrassment for Israel and further complicate the already distant prospect of a negotiated peace. The data indicate that 40 percent of the land that Israel plans to keep in any future deal with the Palestinians is private.
The new claims regarding Palestinian property are said to come from the 2004 database of the Civil Administration, which controls the civilian aspects of Israel's presence in the West Bank. Peace Now, an Israeli group that advocates Palestinian self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, plans to publish the information on Tuesday. An advance copy was made available to The New York Times.
The data - maps that show the government's registry of the land by category - was given to Peace Now by someone who obtained it from an official inside the Civil Administration. The Times spoke to the person who received it from the Civil Administration official and agreed not to identify him because of the delicate nature of the material.
That person, who has frequent contact with the Civil Administration, said he and the official wanted to expose what they consider to be wide-scale violations of private Palestinian property rights by the government and settlers. The government has refused to give the material directly to Peace Now, which requested it under Israel's freedom of information law.
Shlomo Dror, a spokesman for the Civil Administration, said he could not comment on the data without studying it.
He said there was a committee, called the blue line committee, that had been investigating these issues of land ownership for three years. 'We haven't finished checking everything,' he said.
Mr. Dror also said that sometimes Palestinians would sell land to Israelis but be unwilling to admit to the sale publicly because they feared retribution as collaborators.
Within prominent settlements that Israel has said it plans to keep in any final border agreement, the data show, for example, that some 86.4 percent of Maale Adumim, a large Jerusalem suburb, is private; and 35.1 percent of Ariel is.
The maps indicate that beyond the private land, 5.8 percent is so-called survey land, meaning of unclear ownership, and 1.3 percent private Jewish land. The rest, about 54 percent, is considered 'state land' or has no designation, though Palestinians say that at least some of it represents agricultural land expropriated by the state.
The figures, together with detailed maps of the land distribution in every Israeli settlement in the West Bank, were put together by the Settlement Watch Project of Peace Now, led by Dror Etkes and Hagit Ofran, and has a record of careful and accurate reporting on settlement growth.
The report does not include Jerusalem, which Israel has annexed and does not consider part of the West Bank, although much of the world regards East Jerusalem as occupied. Much of the world also considers Israeli settlements on occupied land to be illegal under international law. International law requires an occupying power to protect private property, and Israel has always asserted that it does not take land without legal justification.
One case in a settlement Israel intends to keep is in Givat Zeev, barely five miles north of Jerusalem. At the southern edge is the Ayelet Hashachar synagogue. Rabah Abdellatif, a Palestinian who lives in the nearby village of Al Jib, says the land belongs to him.
Papers he has filed with the Israeli military court, which runs the West Bank, seem to favor Mr. Abdellatif. In 1999, Israeli officials confirmed, he was even granted a judgment ordering the demolition of the synagogue because it had been built without permits. But for the last seven years, the Israeli system has done little to enforce its legal judgments. The synagogue stands, and Mr. Abdellatif has no access to his land.
Ram Kovarsky, the town council secretary, said the synagogue was outside the boundaries of Givat Zeev, although there is no obvious separation. Israeli officials confirm that the land is privately owned, though they refuse to say by whom.
Mr. Abdellatif, 65, said: 'I feel stuck, angry. Why would they do that? I don't know who to go to anymore.'
He pointed to his corduroy trousers and said, in the English he learned in Paterson, N.J., where his son is a police detective: 'These are my pants. And those are your pants. And you should not take my pants. This is mine, and that is yours! I never took anyone's land.'
According to the Peace Now figures, 44.3 percent of Givat Zeev is on private Palestinian land.
Miri Eisin, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said that Israeli officials would have to see the data and the maps and added that ownership is complicated and delicate. Baruch Spiegel, a reserve general who just left the Ministry of Defense and dealt with the separation barrier being built near the boundary with the West Bank, also said he would have to see the data in detail in order to judge it.
The definitions of private and state land are complicated, given different administrations of the West Bank going back to the Ottoman Empire, the British mandate, Jordan and now Israel. During the Ottoman Empire, only small areas of the West Bank were registered to specific owners, and often villagers would hold land in common to avoid taxes. The British began a more formal land registry based on land use, taxation or house ownership that continued through the Jordanian period.
Large areas of agricultural land are registered as state land; other areas were requisitioned or seized by the Israeli military after 1967 for security purposes, but such requisitions are meant to be temporary and must be renewed, and do not change the legal ownership of the land, Mr. Dror, the Civil Administration spokesman, said.
But the issue of property is one that Israeli officials are familiar with, even if the percentages here may come as a surprise and may be challenged after the publication of the report.
Asked about Israeli seizure of private Palestinian land in an interview with The Times last summer, before these figures were available, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: 'Now I don't deny anything, I don't ignore anything. I'm just ready to sit down and talk. And resolve it. And resolve it in a generous manner for all sides.'
He said the 1967 war was a one of self-defense. Later, he said: 'Many things happened. Life is not frozen. Things occur. So many things happened, and as a result of this many innocent individuals on both sides suffered, were killed, lost their lives, became crippled for life, lost their family members, their loved ones, thousands of them. And also private property suffered. By the way, on all sides.'
Mr. Olmert says Israel will keep some 10 percent of the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, possibly in a swap for land elsewhere. The area Israel intends to keep is roughly marked by the route of the unfinished separation barrier, which cuts through the West Bank and is intended, Israel says, to stop suicide bombers. Mr. Olmert, however, describes it as a putative border. Nearly 80,000 Jews live in settlements beyond the route of the barrier, but some 180,000 live in settlements within the barrier, while another 200,000 live in East Jerusalem.
But these land-ownership figures show that even in the settlements that Israel intends to keep, there will be a considerable problem of restitution that goes beyond the issue of refugee return.
Mr. Olmert was elected on a pledge to withdraw Israeli settlers living east of the barrier. But after the war with Hezbollah and with fighting ongoing in Gaza, from which Israel withdrew its settlers in the summer of 2005, his withdrawal plan has been suspended.
In March 2005, a report requested by the government found a number of illegal Israeli outposts built on private Palestinian land, and officials promised to destroy them. But only nine houses of only one outpost, Amona, were dismantled after a court case brought by Peace Now.
There is a court case pending over Migron, which began as a group of trailers on a windy hilltop around a set of cellphone antennas in May 1999 and is now a flourishing community of 50 families, said Avi Teksler, an official of the Migron council. But Migron, too, according to the data, is built on private Palestinian land.
Mr. Teksler said that the land was deserted, and that its ownership would be settled in court. Migron, where some children of noted settlement leaders live, has had 'the support of every Israeli government,' he said. 'The government has been a partner to every single move we've made.'
Mr. Teksler added: 'This is how the state of Israel was created. And this is all the land of Israel. We're like the kibbutzim. The only real difference is that we're after 1967, not before.'
But in the Palestinian village of Burqa, Youssef Moussa Abdel Raziq Nabboud, 85, says that some of the land of Migron, and the land on which Israel built a road for settlers, belongs to him and his family, who once grew wheat and beans there. He said he had tax documents from the pre-1967 authorities.
'They have the power to put the settlement there and we can do nothing,' he said. 'They have a fence around the settlement and dogs there.'
Mr. Nabboud went to the Israeli authorities with the mayor, Abu Maher, but they were told he needed an Israeli lawyer and surveyor. 'I have no money for that,' he said. What began as an outpost taking 5 acres has now taken 125, the mayor said.
Mr. Nabboud wears a traditional head covering; his grandson, Khaled, 27, wears a Yankees cap. 'The land is my inheritance,' he said. 'I feel sad I can't go there. And angry. The army protects them.'
nytimes
Cyclo, Your mention of "water rights" is a perfect example of how the Jews of Israel continue to steal land from the Palestinians, but that's only one example. Susan Nathan mentions in her book, the Jews put feces around the homes of Palestinians, so they'll move out, then they take possession of their home, because there is a law on "abandonment" that only applies to the Palestinians.
Your immovable bigotry shines through your post. You write: ". . . those who think they have been authorized by their god to kill you, . . ." That is an allegation without foundation, both because you have no rational basis to claim that the concept of Allah is one of a god who authorizes the killing of Jews, and because you willfully ignore that Israel has kept none of its obligations under the terms of General Assembly Resolution 181 which created the State of Israel, and because you ignore how the State of Israel has stolen Palestinian land, and continues to occupy land owned by Palestinians.
You're just peddling another version of your "islamo-fascist" rant. That remark about "authorized by their god to kill you" was completely uncalled for, and show just what a bigot you are toward Muslims. Palestinians have been dispossessed and killed, and that is why they kill in return. Your are a peddling disgusting and bigoted propaganda.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Bush's Cedar Revolution Collapses in Yet Another Policy Failure
The assassination of Lebanese cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel on Tuesday has thrown that country further into yet more turmoil.
The crisis is a further testament to the bankruptcy of George W. Bush's Middle East policy. Under the dishonest rhetoric of 'democratization,' what Bush has really been about is creating pro-American winners and anti-American losers in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. Bush's vision is not democratic because he always installs a tyranny of the majority. The vanquished are to be crushed and ridiculed, the victors to exult in their triumph. It is like a Leni Riefenstahl film.
The problem is that when you crush the Pushtuns of Afghanistan, who traditionally ruled the country, they have means of hitting back (ask the Canadian troops in Qandahar). When you crush the Sunni Arabs of Iraq, who had traditionally ruled Iraq, they have ways of organizing a guerrilla movement and acting as spoilers of Bush's new Kurdish-Shiite axis in Baghdad. When you crush Hamas even after they won the elections in early 2006, they have means of continuing to struggle.
In Lebanon, Bush egged on the pro-Hariri movement against the Syrians and their allies. Then he egged on Israel to bomb the Shiites of southern Lebanon (and, mysteriously, the rest of Lebanon, too). So he tried to create the March 14th alliance around Hariri as the winners who take all in Lebanon.
So obviously there will be trouble about this. Everything Bush touches turns to ashes, bombings, assassinations. He doesn't know how to compromise and he doesn't know how to influence his neo-colonial possessions so that they can compromise.
Lebanon for the past two years has been caught between several outside forces. The Hariris represent Saudi interests. Hizbullah and Amal, the Shiite parties, are aligned with Syria. The Gemayels have an old, longstanding behind the scenes alliance with Israel and the United States.
As I read the record, Syria provoked the initial crisis in fall, 2004, by overplaying its hand and making the Lebanese accept its choice for president, Gen. Emile Lahoud, for a further 3-year term. PM Rafiq al-Hariri resigned over this heavy-handed interference and looked set to challenge Damascus in the spring, 2005 elections. He was then assassinated in February, 2005. The assassin was himself a Sunni fundamentalist, but the operation may have been encouraged by Syrian or pro-Syrian actors.
The assassination of Hariri touched off a mass protest demanding that Syrian troops finally leave Lebanon (a peacekeeping force came in in 1976 with a US green light, during the civil war). The Syrians were supported by the Shiite Hizbullah, which staged demonstrations nearly as big as those of the pro-Hariri forces. Hariri was a Sunni, but the coalition put together after his death included Christians and Druze, as well.
Syria did withdraw. At that point, Lebanese politics became less polarized, and elections produced a national unity government that Hizbullah also joined.
But then in summer of 2006, Israel launched its long-planned war on little Lebanon, wreaking vast destruction on south Lebanon and on the southern slums of Beirut where Hizbullah was based. Israeli policy was in part to attempt to divide and conquer the Lebanese by making the reform government of Fuad Seniora attempt to disarm Hizbullah, which maintains a small paramilitary force of 3,000 to 5,000. The Lebanese government is too weak to take on Hizbullah, but members of the March 14th reform movement did lay the blame for the war at its feet.
As a result, Hizbullah has pulled out of the government. With Gemayel's assassination, the government will fall if it loses even one more cabinet minister. Worse, the society has now been economically devastated by Israeli bombing raids and is increasingly polarized. The Olmert government's plan for the second Lebanese civil war seems increasingly plausible. Syria has stupidly played into Israel's hands in this regard. The Lebanese themselves are in danger of once again allowing themselves to be used as proxies by people like Bush and Asad and Olmert. The positive achievements of the national unity government of summer-fall 2005 have been undone. Lebanon is on the brink.
Can the Middle East withstand another unconventional war, alongside those in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan, without unravelling altogether? And if it unravels, will it still produce petroleum for US automobiles? Will Israel be held harmless?
Stay tuned.
UN criticises Israel rights abuses
The UN high commissioner for human rights has criticised rights violations in the Palestinian territories as she visited the site of a deadly botched Israeli shelling in the Gaza Strip.
Louise Arbour said during her brief visit to Gaza on Monday: "The violations of human rights in the Palestinian territories are intolerable.
"I think it's clear that civilians are tremendously exposed."
Arbour said that her visit was to express UN condolences and show concern for civilians in Beit Hanoun where some 80 people were killed in this month's Israeli offensive.
Arbour was speaking not far from the Nasser mosque, one of the oldest mosques in Gaza whose lone minaret is all that remains after the offensive, before heading into talks with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, at his Gaza City seafront office.
She emphasised that she would stress to both Israeli and Palestinian authorities the need to protect civilians.
More than 60 Palestinians were killed during a six-day Israeli operation in Beit Hanoun. Nineteen others, mostly women and children, died in an Israeli shelling on November 8.
Arbour's visit comes less than a week after the UN Human Rights Council voted last Wednesday to send an urgent fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun to examine the impact of Israel's attack on the Palestinian homes.
Thirty-two countries, mainly from Asia, Africa and the Middle East, voted for the resolution introduced by Arab and Islamic nations at the 47-member Council, which was subsequently denounced by Washington as "imbalanced".
Your immovable bigotry shines through your post. You write: ". . . those who think they have been authorized by their god to kill you, . . ." That is an allegation without foundation, both because you have no rational basis to claim that the concept of Allah is one of a god who authorizes the killing of Jews, and because you willfully ignore that Israel has kept none of its obligations under the terms of General Assembly Resolution 181 which created the State of Israel, and because you ignore how the State of Israel has stolen Palestinian land, and continues to occupy land owned by Palestinians.
You're just peddling another version of your "islamo-fascist" rant. That remark about "authorized by their god to kill you" was completely uncalled for, and show just what a bigot you are toward Muslims. Palestinians have been dispossessed and killed, and that is why they kill in return. Your are a peddling disgusting and bigoted propaganda.
Palestinians have been dispossessed and killed, and that is why they kill in return.
Jews have been dispossessed and killed, and that is why they kill in return.
EXCERPTS FROM THE KORAN
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-koran?specfile=%2Flv2%2Fenglish%2Frelig%2Fkoran%2Fwww%2Fkoran.o2w&query=wherever+you+find+them&docs=text&sample=1-100&grouping=work
Chapter 4: The Women : 4.89: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
Chapter 4: The Women : 4.91: You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.
Chapter 2: The Cow : 2.191: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
Chapter 9: The Immunity : 9.5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Quote:In brief, The most effective way for Palestinian Arabs to regain their individual property, is to stop killing Israelis and stop supporting the killing of Israelis.
The Israelis did in fact, more than once, make that specific offer to the Palestinian Arabs, if they were to stop killing Israelis. The Palestinian Arab leaders rejected that offer.
Such an offer was never given.
There has never been an offer by Israel to set up a country of Palestine with any sort of realistic borders, water rights, or security.
Cycloptichorn
There has never been an offer by Israel to set up a country of Palestine with [any sort of realistic] borders, water rights, or security.
Fox Financial Guy: We End the War "By Bombing Tehran, Not by Getting it so Some Iraqi Woman Doesn't Have to Wear a Burqa Anymore"
Reported by Melanie - November 20, 2006 - 35 comments
One of the segments featured on Your World w/Neil Cavuto today (November 20, 2006) was a roundtable discussion about Iraq captioned: "Go Big, Go Long, Go Home: Which Does Wall Street Want?" The participants included three cast members from Fox's Saturday morning "business news" show, Cashin' In, and a guest participant, conservative radio talk show host Paul McGuire.
McGuire said Wall Street wanted to go big and long and Fox's Dagen McDowell agreed. Wayne Rogers said we should get out. Cavuto seemed to be for anything but "losing," and Jonathan Hoenig was for bombing Tehran. Some of the reasons he gave for why we attacked Iraq in the first place were pretty interesting too:
You could send in 100,000 troops as long as we're treating them like sacrificial lambs, Neil. And we've asked these troops to win a war without bombing a [inaudible], you know, without hitting a mosque. Everything we've done has been to, you know, boost our image on the, you know, Muslim street. That's not why we went to war in the first place.
The market wants us to end the insurgency and the war. You do that by bombing Tehran, not by getting it so some Iraqi woman doesn't have to wear a burqa anymore.
We haven't put fear in the hearts of militant Islam. That's why we went to war. To win the war against militant Islam.
Ican will agree with this. Bomb Tehran and kill hundreds of innocent people. ...
What the hell is wrong with these damn modern Jews anyway?
Since you refer a couple of times to Germans, since I am one of them - what is a "dkonk", please?
I mean, I have some interest to know exactly what I am.
In the 19th century, with few exceptions, the Jews evenhandedly did not retaliate when victimized by the pogroms of european, asian, and middle eastern dekonks (i.e., deliberate killers of non-killers) and sodekonks (i.e., supporters of deliberate killers of non-killers) Even in the 20th century, it wasn't until 1929, that they began to retaliate, and then it was done only by a small minority.