They don't realize that many "outposts" are approved (and preplanned) extensions of existing towns.
This is the house of Tamar (a Nurse), Mudi (an IDF combat officer) and Shaked Bibi.
It is on State owned land 50 meters from the town of Elazar in Gush Etzion- not on any land owned by Arabs (and most "outposts" are not on any land owned by Arabs).
It received all the appropriate signatures and approvals by all the relevant government authorities.
The only one it lacks is the political signature of the Defense Minister - because this is clearly a dangerous house.
It is slated for destruction.
For information on how you can help call Hana 052-811-9073
Tisha B'Av evening Wednesday, July 29 - join the Women in Green as they March around the Walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. But first the reading of Eichah will take place in front of the US Consulate on Agron Street at 8:00pm.
Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד
23 comments:
I read that the number of people in the outposts are more that the number expelled from Gush Katif
and if they were to give them compensation (for there are a lot of permanant building there), it would be for over 30, million dollars.
Fascinating.
But I have a problem. This house, which you say is 50 meters from Elazar, is not built on private land, and received all permits save that of the Ministry of Defence, looks identical to this one (http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=370&docid=3194) which, according to Peace Now, is 500 meters from Elazar (see http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=58&docid=347), was built on the land of a Palestinian named Munir Mussa, and has received no authority for building.
I can see various possible ways of resolving the discrepancy.
A. It's a different house (obviously it is possible for more than one house to be built to the same design in the same stone in the same area).
B. It's the same house, but Peace Now is mistaken (or lying) in claiming that it is unauthorized and that the land belongs to Mr Mussa.
C. You've been lied to by the supporters of the outpost.
An easy way to resolve A. would be to tell us: is this in the outpost known as Derech Ha'avot?
IF it is the same outpost, then we have to choose between B and C. The fact that Peace Now's case was supported by the army, the civil administration, and the police even before the house was completed, that they promised to demolish it, and that the Supreme Court too supported the case for its demolition, rather suggests to me that Peace Now knows what it's talking about here, and you don't. But I'd be interested to hear any arguments you (or anyone else) has to the contrary.
Further to my last comment, please note this Supreme Court document, dated more than a year ago. (http://elyon2.court.gov.il/files/08/170/028/O05/08028170.O05.htm) You will see that Mordecai and Tamar Bibi are named as respondents (so this is indeed clearly the same house), and that the Supreme Court accepted the assurances of the authorities that they accepted its illegality and would as such be demolished.
Joe, I'm afraid you've been conned. Mr and Mrs Bibi knowingly built an illegal dwelling on someone else's land in violation of several orders from different authorities not to. They (or their supporters) are now trying to gain sympathy by (to put it bluntly) lying, and claiming that they had all legal permits, which is demonstrably not the case. I think a retraction from you might be in order.
I will let you decide for yourself if Peace Now is lying and the answer is B.
I will also correct a few points that I have double checked on.
The house is 100 meters, not 50 meters as I originally stated from the Elazar fence.
The land is listed as Survey Land, not the private property of any Arab.
As you know, that means it is essentially no man’s land, as it has no registry or history of ownership by anyone.
In fact, the court did not accept the claim that the land belonged to the Arab listed in the lawsuit or that it is private Arab land – it only says that the Peace Now lawsuit makes that claim.
Let me repeat that for you:
In fact, the court did not accept the claim that the land belonged to the Arab listed in the lawsuit or that it is private Arab land – it only says that the Peace Now lawsuit makes that claim.
It is certainly wrong to accept that Peace Now claim as fact, as it was not accepted by the court.
The house was built without permissions, unlike what I originally stated.
It was slated for destruction, not because it was on Arab land, but because it was built without permission.
The Defense Minister is required to sign-off on any house destruction which has residents in it.
The Defense Minister didn’t sign (Matan Vilnai, the Deputy Minster did) and that is partially why the house was not destroyed the first time Peace Now tried to have it demolished – because there was no legal destruction order.
The second time (now) the courts ordered the house destroyed, and the Defense Ministry said they will do so (and again, not because it is private Arab land – which it isn’t), but because it didn’t have the proper authorizations to be built - and NOT because it is Arab land - which I repeat again, it is not.
The Defense Minister still hasn’t signed on the destruction.
And the Defense Minister can make it 100% legal with one single signature.
Which is what every good Jew is hoping for.
if they are going to destroy a home built by Jews missing some permits, shouldn't they first destroy the homes built by arab nearby also built without any permits?
seems fair to me.
why isn't peace now demanding equal application of the law?
weren't peace now involved in that whole tax fraud thing were they illegally described themselves as an educational institution, but are actually a political one and the whole tax deductible thing in the states (fraud), and then there was the whole question of their legal standing in court, since they didn't exist as a legal entity as listed on their documents, and it was only because peace now is so tight with the members of the supreme court did they get special treatment.
i'm sure i read that in all the newspaper.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1202742130570&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
how trustworthy are these people. they don't seem to care much about following the letter of the law when it comes to themselves.
Joe:
"Survey Land" does NOT (as a matter of legal fact) mean that it is "no man's land". It means that the ownership is under dispute. It does not mean that the Palestinian does NOT own the land - merely that the title is unclear and no ruling on it has been given. The reason it is called "survey land" is that it requires a survey to determine ownership.
In the absence of that survey, the Supreme Court (reasonably enough) declined to rule that it DOES belong to the Palestinian in question; but it also (equally reasonably) did not rule that it does NOT belong to him. They did not need to rule on this question at all, since the house was due to be demolished anyway. But none of that affects the case of Mr and Mrs Bibi: a third party cannot (legally) use the existence of a dispute over title of the land to go in and simply take it over for themselves.
As for the demolition order, the first such orders were given before the house was even completed. And as you (now) agree, it was built without permission, and despite orders from various authorities to desist from construction and demolish it. It is frankly chutzpahdik for Mr and Mrs Bibi (or their supporters) to seek sympathy for being driven from their home, when they are only in that home in the first place because of their own willingness to disregard the law.
"So you are saying that Peace Now is making a unprovable claim, that the court quite rightly disregarded."
No, I'm saying that Peace Now was making a claim that may well be provable, but the court saw no need to rule on it, as it was not relevant to the case. Can you not see the difference?
Talia Sasson defines Survey Land as land of unknown ownership, not disputed land - and that may just as well refer to Wasteland vs. State land.
That is even backed up by Michael Sfrad of Peace Now who defined Survey land as "State Land whose status needs to be defined" אדמות מדינה, שמצבן עדיין צריך להתברר
The land the house is on is "Survey Land" it is also land that has been uncultivated, undeveloped, and untouched since (at least) 1948.
Survey land can be transformed into State land with a single political signature.
Your use of multiple negatives, proves nothing at all about any claim of ownership.
I believe the court should address the claim of ownership, as perhaps they would have found the people involved in the claim guilty of willful perjury.
But it seems the court chose to ignore the ownership claim, which would have been a much stronger proof and cause for the house destruction, because they found he claim to title so unbelievable and untenable. It certainly would have significantly ruined the case to base it on that.
Meanhile, there are hundreds, if not thousands of illegal Arab land grabs going on in Judea and Samaria (and the Negev too).
As the hero of the Left (Ariel Sharon) said, "Grab all the hilltops you can".
If we Jews don't build the empty and uncultivated hilltops, the Arabs will.
And in this war of ownership of the land, I hardly think it is Chutzpadik to do exactly what the ENEMY is doing, in order to maintain control over Eretz Yisrael.
Finally there were no legal orders to destroy the house.
To destroy an occupied home requires the signature of the Defense Minister. The Defense Minister did not sign such an order – and he still hasn’t yet – so there is still hope for the Jews.
Meanwhile, the real question is why won't Peace Now address and pursue the issue of all the illegal Arab construction and illegal Arab land grabbing?
Don't they believe in the Rule of Law?
Or does Peace Now only believe in its selective application when it comes to Jews?
fascinating.
it appears that peace now is trying to make a land grab of their own.
Joe, you're wrong about the complete lack of permits. The government had the water and electricity installed on the hill a few years ago.
Also, the government gives the official definition of Admot Seker (Survey Land) הרי המדובר במבנים שהוקמו על אדמות סקר, קרי, אדמות שהמדינה תובעת לגביהן בעלות (המדובר באזור בו הקרקע אינה מוסדרת).
"Land the government claims ownership of..."
Peace Now on the other hand is inconsistent in their use of the term, and it changes from document to document. So to quote the definition from someone from Peace Now is meaningless because the same person may use a completely different definition in a different document if that proves the point they want to make at that time.
"Talia Sasson defines Survey Land as land of unknown ownership, not disputed land - and that may just as well refer to Wasteland vs. State land."
True in theory - but in practice the vast majority of cases, as here, involve land which is disputed between the state an claim of ownership by an individual landowner.
And (as Talia Sasson also observes) whatever the origin of Survey Land, it is ILLEGAL for settlements to be extended onto it.
"The land the house is on is "Survey Land" it is also land that has been uncultivated, undeveloped, and untouched since (at least) 1948."
Well, since it's illegal for ANYONE - including the person who claims ownership - to develop Survey Land, that isn't really surprising.
Mr Mussa has obeyed the law, by not developing or working the land despite his claim to it. The Bibis have broken the law, by doing the opposite. You appear to want to support the lawbreakers against the law-obeyer.
"Survey land can be transformed into State land with a single political signature."
It probably can - politically. But LEGALLY it shouldn't be until the official survey has been carried out to confirm the rightful status of the land. Since that survey has not been carried out (as far as I know), the legally correct thing is to leave its status untouched.
"But it seems the court chose to ignore the ownership claim, which would have been a much stronger proof and cause for the house destruction, because they found he claim to title so unbelievable and untenable. It certainly would have significantly ruined the case to base it on that."
No, they ignored it because it was irrelevant, as the house was ALREADY due to be destroyed, so it made no difference who the owner of the land was. If you think a court would start investigating a disputed set of facts whose resolution would make no difference to the outcome of the case, you have a very weird idea of how legal systems work.
"And in this war of ownership of the land, I hardly think it is Chutzpadik to do exactly what the ENEMY is doing, in order to maintain control over Eretz Yisrael."
The most vital thing in fighting wars is to obey one's legally constituted authorities. And the legal authorities ruled that this house should not have been built in the first place, repeatedly denied permission for it, and ordered construction to cease. In most armies in times of war, people who serially disobeyed the commands of their superiors in such a way would be subject to court martial and severe penalties. Mr and Mrs Bibi are getting off lightly.
"To destroy an occupied home requires the signature of the Defense Minister. The Defense Minister did not sign such an order – and he still hasn’t yet – so there is still hope for the Jews."
Since the Supreme Court has ordered the house to be demolished, the Defence Minister's signature should be a formality - he cannot withhold it without himself disobeying the law. And to my mind, the hope for the Jews lies in the Torah command of Dina Malchuta, not in wildly ignoring the law of the land.
"Meanwhile, the real question is why won't Peace Now address and pursue the issue of all the illegal Arab construction and illegal Arab land grabbing?"
I've no idea (I don't speak for Peace Now by any stretch of the imagination). I've also no idea why you are suddenly claiming that the "real question" is about Peace Now, rather than about the actual case.
If you want to say that all illegal construction, whether by Jews or Arabs, should be overturned, you won't have any argument from me. If you want to say that none of it should be overturned, and Arabs and Jews alike should be free to disobey the law and build wherever and whenever they like with no interference from army, police, courts, or anyone else, I would strongly disagree, but I couldn't fault your fairness or consistency. But, as I noted above, you seem to be suggesting that we support Jewish lawbreakers in a case against a law-abiding Arab. And that looks like something too distasteful for me to want to name.
It would appear that your friend David is being conned by Peace Now!
The most vital thing in fighting wars is to win.
If you're not fighting to win, then you lost before you started. Injecting false moral values leads to defeat. Too often that seems to be the goals of the left.
But I'm glad you agree that the Defense Minister can turn Survey Land into State Land - as has been done in the past. Many towns inside the Green Line have been retroactively legalized.
It is Ehud Barak's choice, and there is no legal problem with him doing so in this case either. So I would assume you would agree then that if Ehud Barak changes the land's status and legalizes the homes retroactively then you would be happy for the Jews to continue to live there.
It looks more likely that Mussa perjured himself, not very law abiding of him at all. Absolutely no convincing evidence has been shown that the land is his, just the Peace Now people pushing him to say so.
Under survey land, the ruling can be easily overturned. If it were really private Arab land, the destruction ruling couldn't be overruled by a mere signature.
The argument chosen to destroy the house was the far weaker of the two - unless the second argument held no water at all.
In J&S squatting is a common and acceptable practice by law. A lack of permission is not necessarily meaningful at all.
Strange. Joe clearly compared Arab illegal construction to Jewish construction and noticed the complete lack of enforcement of the law against illegal Arab construction (while noting the strong and one sided attempt to enforce it solely against Jews), and you chose to compare Jewish construction to the very questionable claims of an individual Arab fronting for an organization of questionable moral values.
You compare apples and oranges.
"The most vital thing in fighting wars is to obey one's legally constituted authorities."
Bamidbar 33:53
Take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given you the land to possess.
Looks like they're doing just that.
"The most vital thing in fighting wars is to win.
If you're not fighting to win, then you lost before you started. Injecting false moral values leads to defeat. Too often that seems to be the goals of the left."
I do not regard obeying the rule of law as a position of the "left" (to which I do not consider myself to belong), nor following the Torah's rules on the law of the land as a "false moral value". I am sorry that you do.
"It is Ehud Barak's choice, and there is no legal problem with him doing so in this case either."
IF the relevant survey is carried out - only if that. If not, then Mr Barak has himself acted outside the law.
"So I would assume you would agree then that if Ehud Barak changes the land's status and legalizes the homes retroactively then you would be happy for the Jews to continue to live there."
No, because at the time when they built it it was survey land, and hence illegal to build on. I do not approve of retrospectively sanctioning illegality. The Bibis' house should be demolished no matter what, in accordance with the court rulings. WHEN the survey is done, and IF it is ruled state land, then they can reapply using the proper channels.
"It looks more likely that Mussa perjured himself, not very law abiding of him at all."
That is not for you (or me) to say - since the official determination of the ownership of the land has not yet been made. What we DO know is that, as far as the use of the land goes, Mr and Mrs Bibi DEFINITELY broke the law, since they settled on survey land, and Mr Mussa DEFINITELY obeyed it, since (on Joe's own account) he did not work or develop the land despite claiming it. Speculating that he might have broken some other law in some other way is really a pretty desperate argument.
No big deal for him to not work the land, when he didn't know it was his until Peace Now told him so.
Apparently the only Arab in Judea that doesn't try to work land he claims is his. A veritable Tzaddik in Sdom.
Hardly a credible story.
"No big deal for him to not work the land, when he didn't know it was his until Peace Now told him so."
Your evidence for this?
You are ratcheting up speculative claims about the nefariousness of Mr Mussa (who has, let's repeat, not been shown to have committed ANY crime here), and keep skirting around the central issue that there is a clear law banning settlement on Survey Land, and the Bibis straightforwardly broke it, and continued to break it despite orders and rulings against them. I don't know why, in a dispute between the two, you are so adamantly supporting these acknowledged lawbreakers.
Because your claim that Mussa's didn't work the land he is suddenly claiming because he was (and presumably his forefathers were) following the law for the past 60 years is so ridiculous its preposterous, and because the Bibi family is helping maintain and expand our control over Eretz Yisrael, and that is an act that overrides any arbitrary Political decision or modern day White Paper reincarnation that tries to prevent it.
Just one contribution: the whole problem with Peace Now & Company is that they do not understand that the Mandate, international law, recognized the Jewish right throughout all the territory, at the very least, from the sea to the River, to "close settlement on the land" and the use of State lands for that purpose. PN claims that the situation has changed and that we must recognize a "Palestinian state" in Judea and Samaria.
I don't. They never recognized me when they were supposed to and waged terror war. So, unless land can be proven as private (title deeds, tax payments, etc.), any other land is Jewish even without the Bible and cannot be "illegal".
PN allows political outlook to prejudice Jewish rights.
Just how much credibility does Peace Now have these days anyway?
ZOA Response to Peace Now regarding Fatah Constitution: wherein Peace Now denies the Fatah Constitution calls for the destruction of Israel
Peace Now loses registrar's approval
New Site Opens to Counter 'Peace Now': the site no longer exists, but their main point is:
Website founder King recently filed a suit against Peace Now based on Tzali Reshef's admission that the organization does not legally exist. In response to an earlier suit by King against Peace Now demanding an award for damages, Reshef said that Peace Now cannot be sued because it is not technically a legally-recognized association. King then countered with a suit demanding that Peace Now be erased from all the cases it itself brought against Jewish interests in Judea and Samaria.
"If it can't be sued, then it can't sue," King says. He expresses astonishment that the State Prosecution - headed until last week by Peace Now co-founder Eran Shendar - never "realized" that the many court suits filed over the years by Peace Now were illegal.
'Peace Now' Will Have to Publicize EU Contributions: which means PN is at least as reliable as Human Rights Watch.
Peace Now: 32% of land held for settlements is private Palestinian property: In which PN is off by 85.5%--blames the IDF for their using bad numbers:
The group claimed in November that 86 percent of Ma'aleh Adumim, which has more than 30,000 residents, was built on private Palestinian land.
After successfully petitioning the court to see the database, the group reported Wednesday that data show only 0.5 percent of the settlement is built on private land.
"The first report they released had major mistakes," said Captain Zidki Maman, a spokesman for the Civil Administration.
Dror Etkes, Peace Now's settlement expert, said if the original information it published was inaccurate, then the military was to blame for refusing to release the database until the court ordered it to do so after the November report.
So again, just how much credibility does Peace Now have?
the "left" (to which I do not consider myself to belong)
and if my great aunt sadie grew a pair, she'd be my uncle, until they she's still my aunt no matter she calls herself.
Post a Comment