Human Rights Groups Petition Israeli Court to Halt Settlement

[IndianaGreen]

Human Rights Groups Petition Israeli Court to Halt Settlement

By B'Tselem
6-13-08, 2:16 pm

Petition to the High Court of Justice: Immediately halt construction on 9 houses in Ofra settlement

Five Palestinian landowners and human rights organizations Yesh Din and B'Tselem claim in first petition of its kind: Ofra is an illegal outpost built mostly on private land.

Human rights organizations Yesh Din and B'Tselem have today (June 4) petitioned the High Court of Justice, along with five Palestinian residents of the village Ein Yabrud who own land in the Ofra settlement, demanding that the court halt construction of 9 houses being built on their land and prohibit people from moving in to these houses. In the petition, filed against the Minister of Justice and the O.C. Central Command, the petitioners request that the authorities be instructed to uphold demolition orders issued on the houses in the past and to issue an interim order that will prohibit dwellers from moving into the houses and prevent the houses from being connected to electricity, water and sewage until a ruling issues on the matter.

9 new permanent structures are currently being built in the settlement of Ofra, situated east of Ramallah. The structures, not currently occupied, are constructed on privately owned land belonging to 5 Palestinians. The Israeli authorities have confirmed this to the petitioners, and even emphasized that cease and desist orders and demolition orders had been issued on the houses roughly 6 months ago. Despite this, the petition states, construction continues furiously, without the authorities taking any steps to implement the orders they themselves issued. "In every instance that illegal construction by Jews is carried out in the West Bank on stolen private Palestinian land, as in this one, the law enforcement arm of the authorities is not felt at all," the petition states.

In recent months, B'Tselem has conducted extensive research, to identify the Palestinian land owners and collect documentation of ownership of the land. The documents collected prove that most of the settlement of Ofra was built on private property owned by Palestinians residing in adjacent villages – Ein Yabrud and Silwad. The Civil Administration even confirms that Ofra has no jurisdictional area and no detailed outline plans from which it can approve any sort of building in the settlement. Therefore, the petition states that Ofra is the largest unauthorized outpost in the West Bank. The petition was filed as part of the joint efforts of the two organizations, with B'Tselem overseeing the research aspects and Yesh Din overseeing the use of legal channels.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7010/1/339

[subsuelo]

1. Interesting to me how Israeli authorities think they can keep stealing more land

Then they all cry about the possibility that it might just have to be One-State in the end.

I mean, how stupid can you get? Keep stealing all the land from the native population, then cry and complain about proposed One-State solutions. What else is going to be left? The few miles of ghetto and reservation camps that Israel dumps it's sewage on?

Why does the U.S. support such blatant hatred and stupidity?

[IndianaGreen]

2. Why does the U.S. support such blatant hatred and stupidity?

Because our media only airs the views of the most extremist rightwing elements in Israel, and our politicians just follow along like the lapdogs that they are.

[subsuelo]

5. I agree, but then the next question is:

Why does American media only air the views of right-wing extremists?

Grand prize goes to the person that can answer that ...

[LeftishBrit]

4. While the authorities are indeed wrong and stupid...

this will not ultimately require a 'one-state solution'. What it will require is dismantlement of all these new settlements - which will mean much more trouble and expense for all, and more disruption for the occupants of the settlements when they finally have to move than if they'd never been there in the first place. And more importantly, increased hardship and injustice for the Palestinians NOW; and further delays in moving toward peace.

But not a (so-called) 'one-state solution'.

[subsuelo]

6. Ask yourself, LeftishBrit

what is more likely to happen?

A dismantlement of settlements? Or continuing along the same path of failed peace talks driven by failure leaderships and constantly fueled by ongoing killings and even more and more settlements?

It's time to face reality. Two state is a dream of the past.

[oberliner]

7. Most likely scenario

Some settlements dismantled, others incorporated into Israel as part of a land swap with the Palestinians.

Right now that offer is on the table - 91 percent of the West Bank and a territorial exchange to make up the rest.

The Palestinian leadership has rejected that proposed map.

Hopefully the two sides can reach an agreement that both find acceptable.

[subsuelo]

8. Yes, no wonder they've rejected it.

Suppose someone stole part of your land. Then they offer you 91% of it back.

You taking that deal?

[Vegasaurus]

11. 91% is better than 0%

which is what they have now.

At some point, it is hoped that the Palestinians will realize that statehood is within their grasp, as it has been for 60 years.

However, if the goal is not their OWN state, but taking over the state of Israel, I am afraid they won't be having their own state, whether it is 0% or 91%.

They really should face reality.

Israel is not giving them all of area C.

There will be no right of return for 4.5 million refugees.

Israel is not going away unless they want to bomb it to oblivion (and take themselves along to the virgins).

Wake up.

[subsuelo]

14. So you would take 91% of something stolen from you?

[LeftishBrit]

20. If it had been stolen from my grandparents, and there'd been a 40-year violent family feud...

and getting 91% of my inheritance was the alternative to another 40 or 400 years of violence, then certainly I would.

Even without the violence, there has been many a case where a legal feud over property has gone on for so long, that by the time it's over, even the 'winner' is left with nothing because it's all gone in legal fees and costs. Often it *is* better to accept most of what is owed one, rather than lose everything through a long-term battle, with only the comfort that the other side is losing everything too!

None of this excuses further building of settlements, which is absolutely INexcusable at this stage.

There needs to be an end of the Occupation and a two-state solution - and this will inevitably involve compromises that aren't fully satisfactory or just to EITHER side.

[shaayecanaan]

23. Im sure the Palestinian negotiators will take that on board...

...and getting 91% of my inheritance was the alternative to another 40 or 400 years of violence, then certainly I would.

What if getting 91% of your inheritance was no guarantee that you would not get the 40 years of violence anyway?

The deal gives absolutely nothing to Palestinians. The settlements remain. The refugees will remain in their camps. Israel will keep drawing water from the West Bank. And no doubt Israel will show the same respect for the sovereignty of the new Palestinian state that it shows for Lebanon.

It is simply asking the Palestinians to rubber stamp their own state of misery. The Palestinians are asking for 22% of their historical homeland. They have a population equal to Israel's. Why on earth should they take any less?

The Palestinians have learned this much in the last sixty years: never move. Whereever you end up, its usually worse. The Palestinians who left the West Bank for Jordan regretted it, the Palestinians who left Jordan for Lebanon regretted it more. And the Palestinians who left for the Gulf states and were then expelled after the Gulf war regretted it most of all.

It took a genuine scare in the 1973 war to persuade Israel to offer Egypt all its land back. It took the northern war to convince them to make the same offer to Syria. Of course, they can keep sending their kids out to police the Palestinians. But given the 19,000 mostly young Israelis that leave the country each year, that is probably not the best outcome in the long term. Because those who do leave are virtually all Jewish.

The fundamentally radical Palestinian statement is sammud, steadfastness stoicism. My favourite graffito on the separation barrier was three lines, in English:-

Rocks are hard
Water is wet
And I am not moving.

[Vegasaurus]

24. You aren't moving

so you will just get more and more miserable.

That's your choice, but it is a stupid one.

[shaayecanaan]

31. Im not Palestinian...

and I did move. But still, I remain a pan-Arabist. Call me a dreamer.

To quote another graffito: I was with my father in the old country, when I saw something written on the side of a building in what I thought was Syriac, the liturgical language of most of the Eastern churches. Also the language of Daniel, Ezra, Jesus and the Babylonian Talmud. This was unusual. I couldnt read it much, but my father could, and he said it read:-

"Even though you can read this, to the Israelis you are just another Arab"

I took a photo of it as I recall, don't know if I still have it. But nevertheless, it stayed with me.

[Vegasaurus]

32. Dream on

Your vision of pan-Arab land without Jews isn't coming to pass without a huge war.

Are you in favor of a huge war, to rid the mideast of Israel and Jews?

[shaayecanaan]

34. Not at all...

My vision is more so an association of Arab states akin to the European Union. Its not something that necessarily relates to Israel at all.

You have to understand, and the older Mizrahi will tell you this, that the view of Jews in the near East was completely different from that in Western countries.

Back before the nakba, you had Maronites, Assyrians, Druze, Europeans, Muslims, Greek Orthodox, Turkmen, Alawites, Jews, Bahai, Armenians, Samaritans, Shia, Yazidis, etc floating around. You had a greater religious diversity than anywhere on Earth.

The Jews spoke Hebrew. Proper Hebrew, with proper Arabic-sounding glottal consonants. Not what is spoken in Israel today, which sounds halfway between Paris and Damascus.

The essential difference between the near-East and the West was that the Jews were not regarded as foreign in any way. Certainly it was impossible for my father to do so, as you only had to listen to Hebrew to recognise its similarity to Aramaic. The Armenians, Chaldeans, Maronites, Coptic Christians etc who all had some familiarity with Syriac/Aramaic or spoke it were aware of the exact same fact. A lot of non-Jews spoke Hebrew. There was no dichotomy between "Jews" and "Arabs". After all, the Jews originated in the Arabian peninsula, had copper-coloured skin same as the rest of us, ate the same food, dressed the same way, spoke Arabic. The Jews were Arabs, as far as we were concerned.

It was quite a shock when white people started arriving and announcing themselves as Jews. They did not speak Arabic, they did not even speak Hebrew very convincingly. Their dress was Western and quite different from what people of the near-East normally associated with Jews. It was if a person with blue eyes, white skin and blonde hair had arrived on your doorstep and announced himself as an African.

All that might change hopefully with time. From what I could tell in Israel, Arab food predominates, and I was impressed with the standard of Arabic spoken by many Israelis. There seems to have been a fair bit of intermarriage because most of the younger Israelis have sort of butter-coloured skin. But I imagine it will take a great deal of time to get back the way it used to be.

[Shaktimaan]

37. Not this old bit again!

I really can't believe that this ancient fiction is still making the rounds... that anti-semitism in the Arab world didn't exist before Zionism, Jews weren't differentiated from Arabs or discriminated against, the different ethnicities lived side by side in peace before the Ashkenazis invaded and stole all of the Arabs' land, etc etc.

From Wikipedia...

Dhimmi were subjected to a number of restrictions, the application and severity of which varied with time and place. Restrictions included residency in segregated quarters, obligation to wear distinctive clothing, public subservience to Muslims, prohibitions against proselytizing, against marrying Muslim women, and limited access to the legal system (the testimony of a Jew didn't count if contradicted by that of a Muslim). Dhimmis had to pay a special poll tax (the "jizya"), which exempted them from military service, and also from payment of the Zakat alms tax required of Muslims. In return, dhimmis were granted limited rights including a degree of tolerance, community autonomy in personal matters, and protection from being killed out-right. Jewish communities, like Christian ones, were typically constituted as semi-autonomous entities managed by their own laws and leadership, who carried the responsibility for the community towards the Muslim rulers.

By medieval standards, conditions for Jews under Islam was generally more formalized and better than those of Jews in Christian lands, in part due to the sharing of minority status with Christians in these lands. We can find evidence for this claim in that the status of Jews in lands with no Christian minority was usually worse than their status in lands with one. For example, there were numerous incidents of massacres and ethnic cleansing of Jews in North Africa,<6> especially in Morocco, Libya and Algeria where eventually Jews were forced to live in ghettos.<7> Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in the Middle Ages in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.<8> At certain times in Yemen, Morocco and Baghdad, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death.<9>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_anti-Semitism

Regarding modern Palestine, it is not insignificant that the first violent episodes between Arabs and Jews were perpetrated by Arabs, but they were not even against the Zionist immigrants you would expect. The initial violence was directed at the native Jewish population in Palestine, such as during the riots in the 20's, and the Hebron Massacre in 1929, followed by the ethnic cleansing of area Jews.

Likewise, in reaction to Israel's establishment Mizrahim across the Arab world were persecuted and expelled from their native countries, despite the fact that they were often not supporters of Israel, let alone active Zionists. So when push came to shove, it doesn't seem like the Arabs REALLY considered the Jews to be the same as themselves. Not only that, but it didn't seem to take much pressure to flip that particular switch either. And that switch got flipped EVERYWHERE pretty much instantaneously. And flipped pretty damn hard too.

[shaayecanaan]

39. Again, you dont have the slightest idea what you're talking about...

The jizya was never collected with great regularity in Ottoman Palestine, and in fact in 1856 the Ottoman empire abolished its collection entirely. To put this in context, the US was still practising slavery at that time, and you could still be sentenced to death by being "drawn and quartered" in England.

It was not perfect by any means, but for the most part the status of Christians was a lot worse than Jews under the Ottomans. In the 1860s 10 000 Lebanese Christians were massacred, in the 1890s, 300 000 Armenians were killed in the Hammidian massacres, during World War 1 a million Armenians, 300 000 Greeks and 250 000 Assyrians were killed. The status of Jews under the Turks was relatively good by comparison, and remains so.

Despite this, or more probably because of it, relations between the local Christians, Arabs and Jews were good. If anything, Palestinians (Christians and Muslims and Jews alike) were united in mutual dislike of the Turks.

Remember, you're talking to a Maronite here. We spent 500+ years under the Ottomans. Consequently I know a fair bit more than fucking Wikipedia or some ill-educated American brat about what life was like under the Turks for Christians and Jews. You could do worse things than to listen to me.

[LeftishBrit]

28. Actually, it 'took a genuine scare in the 1973 war"....

to push Israel to the Right. Of course, this wasn't the only reason why the hawkish element in Israel increased; but it's one reason. Fear makes people more hawkish. Until that war, Israel had never elected a Likud government. Shortly afterwards, it did. And has frequently done so since then. Not a coincidence, I think. Many people (rightly) lament the fact that Israel has moved in the 70s from being a country emphasizing left-wing ideals to a much more hawkish and right-wing one - and this 'genuine scare' had a fair bit to do with it.



'The Palestinians have learned this much in the last sixty years: never move. Whereever you end up, its usually worse. The Palestinians who left the West Bank for Jordan regretted it, the Palestinians who left Jordan for Lebanon regretted it more. And the Palestinians who left for the Gulf states and were then expelled after the Gulf war regretted it most of all.'

Absolutely true and tragic. This shows that no one, including the Arab states, have treated the Palestinians well. It also shows that the Palestinians seriously need a state of their own.



'What if getting 91% of your inheritance was no guarantee that you would not get the 40 years of violence anyway?'


Well, that's an issue on both sides. Both sides are afraid that any concessions will mean increased or continued violence. And this is one of the stumbling-blocks to negotiations and a peace deal. But it will have to come.

[shaayecanaan]

30. "push Israel to the Right..."

A right-wing government that still knew well enough to settle with the Egyptians.

Many people (rightly) lament the fact that Israel has moved in the 70s from being a country emphasizing left-wing ideals to a much more hawkish and right-wing one - and this 'genuine scare' had a fair bit to do with it.

Left wing ideals? Such as the creation of the absentee property laws, that served to denude the Arabs of almost all their remaining property during the 1960s?

Only 2 of Israel's leaders could properly be called liberal. And in both respects their leadership was so white-anted from within it was of little consequence.

[azurnoir]

33. Ok so Israel

only wants to keep the settlement blocs however the devil is once again in the details.

First will the roads connecting those blocs remain Israeli only?

Will the IDF still be present to "guard" the settlers?

What about border crossings, will there be any guarantees there on the Israeli side that is?

Who will be in charge of collecting tax monies?

And not last or least the water rights, Israel should give those up how is it a "Palestinian" state when Israel is retaining rights to its resources

If the answer to these or perhaps any one of these questions is yes Israel will remain in control of that or the IDF will be present then for the Palestinians why bother, all they do is certify the situation as it stands right now.

[Shaktimaan]

16. If I were the Palestinians...

yes, I would take that deal. Without question 91% along with self-determination beats out the current state of affairs, and it certainly will also beat out any future situation in all likelihood. In the decades before Israeli independence, Israel was always willing to take the sure thing, a state of their own, even if it was far smaller than the one they were promised. No one can predict the future, who is to say that an opportunity this rare would come again in a better form? I would expect that the Palestinians should have learned this lesson by now. Sadly though, I am not surprised that they haven't.

But I have a question for you. You keep referring to this land as "theirs" (ie: Palestinian) and see it as stolen by Israel. Why does 100% of this land belong solely to the Palestinians? They aren't the only ethnicity to have lived there for hundreds or thousands of years after all.

[Dick Dastardly]

21. I am against the settlements but this is not new land being used but land that is already part of a

settlement.

Israel didn't steal the WB and Gaza, it was won in a war waged against Israel. UN Res 242 does not require Israel to return to the 67 border and allows it to keep some land.

91% is the best deal they are going to get, it will only get worse as time goes on. They need to be realistic, they either capitulate now and start building their lives or later with no gain and most likely a worse deal as well as continued uneeded misery. Israel can keep the status quo and not suffer in misery as the Palestinians do, so they are better able to live with the current status quo. Whether the situation is fair or not is immaterial as is most things in life, it is reality that needs to be dealt with.

[Selatius]

29. That's the same question that faced the IRA during the Irish War of Independence.

The ultimate settlement led to most of Ireland being free from English occupation, but England kept control over Northern Ireland, and we all know the bloody history of Northern Ireland. There were many who said that Ireland should hold out until all of Ireland is free from the English control.

[IndianaGreen]

9. The only solution is Israel's withdrawal from all the land taken in 1967

The alternative is for Israel to grant full Israeli citizenship to all Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank, and accept the consequences of free and democratic elections.

[Vegasaurus]

12. Won't happen.

The large settlement blocs are going to stay in Israeli control.

There will not be a mass resettling of a half million Israelis.

There will be a land swap, but the Palestinans don't want a swap, they want all the land.

That won't happen either.

[subsuelo]

15. Who wants all the land? Only one side is stealing it from the other

Get real

[Shaktimaan]

18. Are you sure about that?

Didn't the Palestinians steal some land from the Jews at some point?

And didn't some other Arabs steal a whole lot of land from both the Palestinians and the Jews?

And we all know that the Europeans stole a big mess of land from the Jews, and that the Jews stole a whole bunch of land from the Palestinians, and that the Palestinians keep trying to steal everyone else's land but have been on a brutal losing streak for quite some time and were unable to steal any land away from Jordan, Lebanon or Israel, leaving them with very little land left.

Maybe that's why some of the Palestinians ended up stealing buckets of land away from some other Palestinians?

At any rate, it really kind of sounds like everyone is stealing everyone else's land whenever they get the chance.

[LeftishBrit]

19. All too true!

and applicable to many other places than the Middle East.

[notfullofit]

22. Well put. nt

[shaayecanaan]

25. Didn't the Palestinians steal some land from the Jews at some point?

Which the Jews had originally stolen from the Phonecians, and the Philistines.

Of course, much of modern Israel was never part of ancient Israel. The Philistine city states (Ashkelon, Gaza, and Ashdod) survived up until the Roman period. All three states were subjugated by Israel at varying times and to varying extents, but were never colonised. Ashdod is mentioned in the Bible as a Philistine city that paid tribute to Israel.

Gaza was crushed by the Romans and sacked. It was resettled by nearby Bedouins. Ashdod and Ashkelon were not. mDNA analysis indicates that most of the old Gazan families, including the refugees from Ashkelon and Ashdod, show clear markers of having originated in the Levant, in which case they are most likely descended from the original Philistine inhabitants of the region.

Of course, all three cities had a sizeable Jewish minority from time to time, but you could say the same for numerous cities throughout the world. At the end of the day, the Arabs of the area have a far better historical claim to it than the Jews.

[Shaktimaan]

26. A far better historical claim to what area exactly?

I don't have any idea what this post of yours is supposed to prove, or what relevance it has to anything I wrote, which all reference events that occurred in the past few decades at various points during the current conflict. I fail to see how the Romans figure into the I/P issue in any meaningful way.

As for the land Palestinians stole from Jews, I was talking about events like the Hebron Massacre where that city's Jews were killed and had their land stolen from them. It doesn't really matter who has a better claim to the area, (as though there is a way to objectively measure such a thing.) It does not give any majority group the right to evict minorities from their privately owned land or sanction ethnic cleansing. The idea of going back thousands of years to determine who lived there first in order to grant that group privileges over their long-standing neighbors is insane. Clearly both Palestinians and Jews each have legit historical connections to the land in question. Neither one invalidates the other's.

Now, whether or not the Palestinians from Gaza can in fact trace their roots back to that area it is an argument that their leaders have purposefully avoided speaking about publicly. Using that line of reasoning has always been considered a losing strategy for advancing the Palestinian cause. Admitting that the Palestinians have lived there for as long or even longer than the ancient Jews would do much to void some of their most compelling general objections to Zionism.

[shaayecanaan]

27. You said "And we all know that the Europeans stole a big mess of land from the Jews"

which can only be, as far as I can tell, a reference to the Roman period.

The idea of going back thousands of years to determine who lived there first in order to grant that group privileges over their long-standing neighbors is insane.

I would agree totally. To transfer a territory to someone other than the residents of that land on the basis of ancient historical claims sounds like a very bad idea to me as well.

A far better historical claim to what area exactly?

To the white splodge on the map above. That much is clear cut: any historical Jewish claim on Philistia is on thin ground. Right wing figures carp endlessly about "Judea and Samaria" without seemingly realising that neither of them were anywhere near the current Gaza Strip.

The original Gaza extension in the 1947 partition allocating Ashkelon, Ashdod and Gaza to the Arabs seems to have anticipated this, it roughly encompasses the boundaries of ancient Philistia, which was never part of Israel.

Everything else is more difficult. The Galilee, etc changed hands quite a few times. The Assyrians, who after all are all that remains of the 10 lost tribes (bearing in mind that Jews, per se, only represent 2 of the original 12, and who resided in ancient Judah and not Israel per se) would have just as good a historical claim to the rest of Israel as the present day Jews. BTW, the Assyrians are doing it rather hard at the moment, what with all of the Chaldean Christians in Iraq getting the knife. Perhaps Europe will feel sorry enough for them to give them a chunk of someone's territory. Or maybe they're not that stupid anymore.

[Shaktimaan]

35. You said, "which can only be, as far as I can tell, a reference to the Roman period."

Nope, everything I'm discussing here are examples taken from the last 100 years. European theft of Jewish land was not a reference to the Land of Israel, but to post-Holocaust land appropriation and ethnic cleansing of Jews in Europe. Poland for instance, had a particularly heinous role in the theft of property that belonged to Jewish residents, who would often return after having survived the camps to find their neighbors living in their home. Surviving the holocaust only to get killed (or expelled) upon returning to what they had thought of as their home... tragic.

Right wing figures carp endlessly about "Judea and Samaria" without seemingly realising that neither of them were anywhere near the current Gaza Strip.

But what makes you think that they are referring to Gaza when they talk about Judea and Samaria? Judea and Samaria usually just means the west bank. It is actually the official Israeli name for that district, though using the term will mark you as a right winger. I've never heard anyone use it to mean Gaza. Is it something you've encountered?

The Assyrians, who after all are all that remains of the 10 lost tribes (bearing in mind that Jews, per se, only represent 2 of the original 12, and who resided in ancient Judah and not Israel per se) would have just as good a historical claim to the rest of Israel as the present day Jews.

Why? Their homeland isn't in Israel, the land doesn't hold any special significance for them. Their homeland is Assyria, where many of them still live. Didn't they even petition to secede (just from Iraq, not Turkey or Syria or wherever else historic Assyria was) and form a modern day Assyrian state recently? I would have no problem with that at all. But why would they need a chunk of someone else's territory if they already reside in their ancient homeland?

You seem to be obsessed with trying to deny that a unique relationship exists between Israel and the Jews, and it has me kind of baffled. Not many people try and minimize the historical significance Israel has for the Jewish people. You really think that the Assyrians have an equivalent claim to Israel? Why, just because it was once a part of their vast empire and some of them lived there? Like the Ottomans or the Romans or the Crusaders?

Jews have been continuously living in that area for three thousand years. It's the geographical focal point of the religion and its cultural relevance has remained central to Jewish nationality throughout the entire diaspora... two thousand years time and at all points of the globe where Jews settled. I am not challenging the fact that Palestinians also have a legitimate cultural/historical claim to the area. One does not invalidate the other. But if you really think that modern day Assyrians have an equal claim to Israel as the Jews do then you are probably misunderstanding either Assyrian history or Jewish history. Who knows which? The one thing that's certain is that somewhere along the way you missed something. I'm suspecting that it may have been on purpose too.

[shaayecanaan]

36. unique relationship

You seem to be obsessed with trying to deny that a unique relationship exists between Israel and the Jews, and it has me kind of baffled.

I don't deny that exists. I simply say that it means squat, in terms of the allocation of real estate.

The common implication is that Jews have a better claim to Israel because they value it more than anyone else. For example, it has been often repeated that Jerusalem is the holiest site in Judaism but only the third-holiest site in Islam etc.

Following that logic, a Jew living in Rome could be legitimately kicked out of his house by a Catholic, since obviously Rome is holier to the Catholic than the Jew.

The argument is also made that Jews have a better claim to Palestine than the Palestinians, since the Jews only have one state and the Arabs have several Arab states. Lots of people living in the middle-East dont have states (the Assyrians being one example). Lots of them have history in Palestine going back at least as far as the Jews (the Assyrians being one example). Lots of them have been persecuted (the Assyrians being one example). Given that the Assyrians have been deprived of the security they had under Saddam Hussein, Iraq may not be the best place for them. Surely you wouldnt begrudge them a patch of Israel?

Im sure if you were kicked out of your house in America (which is where I presume you live) you would not be impressed with being told "oh but you can live in Canada, after all there are plenty of Western nations".

[Vegasaurus]

38. The Jews were all kicked out of the homes in Arab lands too

and you aren't crying a river for them now, are you?

No one allows them back to these countries to live in their former homes, or retrieve their belongings, or recover what they lost monetarily.

And the world doesn't even care, contrary to the "progressives"' huge outpouring of support for the lost homes of the Palestinian Arabs.

Until you acknowledge the loss of homes by Jews (again, and again, and again, in the diaspora before the creation of Israel), your argument holds no water at all.

[shaayecanaan]

40. re

and you aren't crying a river for them now, are you?

Because your post is complete and utter bullshit, and Ive gone through all this in detail before.

Jews for the most part are able to return to their lands of origin. In some cases, such as Morocco, the government is trying to encourage Jews to return. Mostly these attempts have been unsuccessful, not least because economically it is of course far better to live in Israel than Morocco. Likewise, most Jews who moved to Israel from Arab lands left because they wanted to. To illustrate, virtually all Jews in Armenia (a Christian country) left for Israel as well, not because they were forced to, but because they figured economically life in Israel was bound to be better than life in Armenia.

The Jews are able to return. The Palestinians are not. Accordingly your attempt to simplistically equate the two migrations fails.

Until you acknowledge the loss of homes by Jews (again, and again, and again, in the diaspora before the creation of Israel), your argument holds no water at all.

"the loss of homes by Jews in the diaspora before the creation of Israel": What are you referring to, exactly?

[Vegasaurus]

41. False, untrue, lies, falsehoods

Do these make you feel better?

From 1948 on, Jewish communities that had survived in Arab countries since antiquity dwindled to a few families or became extinct. Jews were FORCED from Egypt, from Syria, from Iraq, Algeria, Yemen,Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, and had been persecuted long before 1948. However, zionism became punishable by death, and Jews were FORCED to leave.

Aproximately 600,000 Jews sought refuge in the State of Israel. Since their belongings were confiscated as the price of leaving, they arrived in Israel penniless, but they were welcomed and quickly absorbed into Israeli society.

Arab leaders have repeatedly made clear their animosity toward Jews and Judaism. For example, on November 23, 1937, Saudi Arabia's King Ibn Saud told British Colonel H.R.P. Dickson: "Our hatred for the Jews dates from God's condemnation of them for their persecution and rejection of Isa (Jesus) and their subsequent rejection of His chosen Prophet." He added "that for a Muslim to kill a Jew, or for him to be killed by a Jew ensures him an immediate entry into Heaven and into the august presence of God Almighty."

When Hitler introduced the Nuremberg racial laws in 1935, he received telegrams of congratulation from all corners of the Arab world. Later, during the war, one of his most ardent supporters was the Mufti of Jerusalem.


Israelis/Jews cannot even VISIT, much less LIVE in their former countries.

They are NOT WELCOMED. ANTI-semitism in these Arab countires is rampant today, and Jews, who lost their homes, belongings and livelihood, will NEVER BE ABLE TO RECOVER THEM.

It's time to stop writing bullshit that isn't remotely true.

[shaayecanaan]

42. Back it up, for once...

From 1948 on, Jewish communities that had survived in Arab countries since antiquity dwindled to a few families or became extinct. Jews were FORCED from Egypt, from Syria, from Iraq, Algeria, Yemen,Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, and had been persecuted long before 1948. However, zionism became punishable by death, and Jews were FORCED to leave.

Okay. Let's take this seriously. You say Jews were forced from Morocco. I want evidence of this. Let's see it. Lets also see some evidence that Jews cannot visit Morocco.

[shaayecanaan]

43. There seems to be a thriving trade in "Jewish heritage tours to Morocco"

from what I found on google:-

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=jewish+heritage+tours+to+morocco&start=10&sa=N

So much for Moroccan Jews not being able to visit their country of origin. What do you think the chances are that a lot of people on those tours are Jewish?

[shaayecanaan]

44. Nothing yet? I thought so. nt

[notfullofit]

45. Expelled Jews hold deeds on Arab lands

The government needs to bring up the issue of hundreds of thousands of Jews who left their homes in Arab countries following the establishment of the State of Israel as part of any future peace agreement with the Palestinians, the president of the World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries said Thursday.

About 850,000 Jews fled Arab countries after Israel's founding in 1948, leaving behind assets valued today at more than $300 billion, said Heskel M. Haddad.

He added that the New York-based organization has decades-old property deeds of Jews from Arab countries on a total area of 100,000 sq.km. - which is five times the size of the State of Israel.

Most of the properties are located in Iraq, Egypt and Morocco, Haddad said.

snip...
Haddad said that the key to resolving the issue rested with the Arab League, which in the 1950s passed a resolution stating that no Arab government would grant citizenship to Palestinian refugees, keeping them in limbo for over half a century.

At the same time, the Arab League urged Arab governments to facilitate the exit of Jews from Arab countries, a resolution which was carried out with a series of punitive measures and discriminatory decrees making it untenable for the Jews to stay in the countries.

"No Jews from Arab countries would give up their property and home and come to Israel out of Zionism," Haddad said.

He said that the Israeli government was "myopic" not to utilize this little-known information, which he said should be part of a package financial solution to solving the issue of Palestinian refugees.

An Israeli ministerial committee on claims for Jewish property in Arab countries, which is currently headed by the Pensioners Minister Rafi Eitan, has been virtually dormant since it was established four years ago.

more...
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1195127517604&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Shaktimaan]

17. Keep stealing "all the land?"

Help me out here, because the last time I checked Israeli settlements only accounted for around 2% of the west bank. Besides that, I don't believe that Israel has annexed any of that land aside from East Jerusalem and areas in the Golan Heights. So, even that land hasn't been exactly "stolen" at this point, it has merely been "settled." (Not including the land that is actually privately owned by Palestinians. That land has been stolen in my view, and there is no adequate excuse for doing so. Much less so for building a settlement, of all reasons.)

We can argue the legality of settlements built on non-privately owned or utilized property, but unless they are actually taking something away from its owner then they are not stealing. The right of Jews to settle unowned property is a very different discussion than the right of Jews to settle privately owned and utilized property.

Either way, it is still only 2% of the land at this point in time. They have a ways to go before nearing "all of it."

[LeftishBrit]

3. Good for the Human Rights organizations!

I hope they win.

[grassfed]

10. facts on the ground

"I love negotiations. I hope they go on forever." - Ariel Sharon

[oberliner]

13. What is your source for that quote?

Do you have a citation?