The myth of ‘Private Arab Lands’ in Judea and Samaria

On the backdrop of the efforts to legalize Jewish towns, one resident explains that King Hussein simply distributed lands.

By Hillel Fendel, INN

Amona

Yoav Elitzur resides in Ofrah, the first Jewish community in the Binyamin area of Judea and Samaria in the modern age (founded in 1975). He has produced a short video, in Hebrew, in which he explains succinctly how the myth of, “privately-owned Arab lands in Judea and Samaria,” came to be. His explanation, if disseminated sufficiently far and wide, should take the air out of the sails of the left-wing organizations which are seeking to destroy the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria, by claiming that it is founded upon lands that belong to others. In Elitzur’s words:

“My name is Yoav Elitzur. I grew up in Ofrah, and my children are now on the verge of raising the fourth generation of Elitzurs in Ofrah. In the heart of my town, at the end of my block, are nine houses that the Supreme Court has ruled must be razed within a few months. In addition, from my window I can see the community of Amona, the entirety of which must be destroyed by the end of the year, by the demand of the High Court. Why? Because, the High Court says, ‘they are located on privately-owned lands.’

“The question that lies at the base of the entire issue seems like an ethical one: How can we allow ourselves to build homes and communities on lands that belong to individuals, whether it be Ahmed, or Sa’id, or another; who bought it with his own hard-earned money, and who uses it to support his family? How can we take lands that belong to someone else?

“To understand this, we must answer a simple question hovering in the air, but which no one in the media is asking: How can it be that a full 90% (!) of the homes that the Supreme Court ruled must be razed have no claimants? Never did that Ahmed, or that Sa’id, come and say, ‘This is my land!’ No one knows who he is! If he exists, why doesn’t he come and claim it? After all, all the work has already been done for him. There has already been a court case, and he has won; now all he has to do and come and say, ‘It’s mine!’

“Maybe it’s hard to find him? Not quite. The left-wing organizations are investing tremendous efforts to find these ‘owners,’ but have not succeeded. How can this be?

“The answer is that the subject of, ‘private lands,’ is, on the whole, a total lie. Most of these lands never actually belonged to any Arab. So how could it be that they are registered in the names of private Arab individuals?

“For this we need a short historical explanation. In 1950, King Hussein of Jordan decided to annex Judea and Samaria to Jordan. No one in the world other than Great Britain recognized this annexation, and certainly none of the Arab states. For some reason, possibly in order to shore up his regime, Hussein decided to organize the lands [over which he had no recognized claim] by simply dividing them up as gifts – no matter if they were rocky hillsides or otherwise unusable – to various individuals. He started the process in the Ramallah area, the area of Binyamin – where Ofrah, Beit El, and many other Jewish towns are now located. Whatever parcels of land were left over, King Hussein gave to the local mukhtars, so that they would register them in the names of their village residents.

“Thus was created a situation in which people had land in their names, but they never saw it, never knew about it, and certainly never invested even one shekel in it [or paid taxes on it.] Precisely because of the rocky, unusable nature of these lands is why Amona and other Jewish towns were built specifically there – so that it would be certain that it is now owned by individuals.

“Thus, 90% of the lands are simply unowned, no matter how many times the falsehood and lie to the contrary is repeated.

“But what about the 10% that truly are privately-owned? In such cases, the policy must be exactly as it is everywhere else in the country: The owners should be compensated. And in fact, this is exactly what we did here in Ofrah. We went to Arabs who owned land encompassing the town, we paid them, and then we built our chicken coops on the land that we had just bought. Not long afterwards, however, the Arab who sold us the land was found dead at the bottom of the well in his village.

“Thus, it was the Arabs who actually set the stage for the continuation of the story. They told their fellow Arabs: ‘You are not allowed to sell your land, for it is actually not really yours. We are in the midst of a national struggle, and you cannot do with this land as you wish. If you do, you will die.’

“In other words, the Arabs changed it from an issue of ‘individual’ ownership to a national issue – and thus there are no more privately-owned lands.

“In this national struggle, then, of the Arabs against the Jewish People and the State of Israel, they’ll take their approach, and we will take our approach [backdrop shows irrigated and blossoming fields]. We will try to purchase, or officially annex, lands; and to do what we can to settle the Land of Israel and build our communities.

“Thus it is totally dishonest to relate to these lands as if they are privately owned, when in fact the matter is one of a struggle between peoples over the Land of Israel.”

Here is the original Hebrew video:

***

Amona is a test case for Israeli democracy

As a matter of procedure, Israel’s High Court of Justice does not examine or evaluate evidence and does not decide issues of land ownership. They rely on what government offices tell them.

Dr. Moshe Dann, INN

Israel’s legal and political system is rigged. The fix is in, and Amona is the current victim. There are more communities on the list.

The pending destruction of Amona led by a handful of unelected, unaccountable, and biased IDF officers and officials of the State compromises Israel’s basic principles. Amona, therefore, is a test-case of Israeli democracy.

Amona was built in 1995 on an uninhabited hilltop overlooking Ofra; it was supported by the Ministery of Housing and Construction,. But Amona’s existence was challenged by Peace Now and Yesh Din who claimed that the land was owned by private Palestinian Arabs — although they never produced any actual claimants.

The Minhal Ezrachi (Civil Administration), the legal authority in Judea and Samaria, and the Prosecutor’s Office (Praklitut) – the State — agreed and asked the High Court of Justice (HCJ) to order the community destroyed.

As a matter of procedure, the HCJ does not examine or evaluate evidence and does not decide issues of land ownership. They rely only on what the State (the Minhal and Praklitut) presents. As long as the State affirmed that Jews built illegally on “private Palestinian land,” and demanded that the homes in Amona, and elsewhere be destroyed, the HCJ was bound to enforce that decision. Although lacking due process, that is the law in Israel.

The question of land ownership, however, has not been determined by a court, and Arab claimants have not presented any valid proof which entitles them to the land. Although misrepresented as a judicial decision about the substance of the claim, it is not.
The question of land ownership, however, has not been determined by a court, and Arab claimants have not presented any valid proof which entitles them to the land. Although misrepresented as a judicial decision about the substance of the claim, it is not.

The source of the problem: Jordanian law

The problem originates in the fact that the areas conquered by the IDF in the 1967 Six Day War are under “military occupation,” and that the military commander has sole authority. Since eastern Jerusalem was incorporated in 1980 and the Golan Heights in 1981, the Gaza Strip was evacuated in 2005, and Areas A&B given to the PA in the Oslo Agreements in the early 1990’s, only Area C of Judea and Samaria remains under military rule; as a branch of the IDF, the IDF Civil Government, Minhal, operates as a separate, unaccountable, and non-transparent quasi- government. This is undemocratic and unjust.

Unilaterally, the Minhal decided to accept Jordanian laws and procedures – although it was under no obligation to do so since Jordan’s occupation of the area was illegal and was rejected by the international community.

The proper procedure would have been to follow the Mandate law, since that authority was appointed by the League of Nations, i.e. sanctioned by international law. The Mandate incorporated Ottoman Land Codes and initiated land surveys and land distributions to Arab inhabitants. The Jordanians, following their predecessors, distributed land freely to Arabs and registering land claims — but they unilaterally changed the law.

Previously, gifted land had restrictions and conditions which had to be fulfilled, such as using the land (usufruct) within a specific time period (3-10 years, depending on the category of land) and paying taxes on it. If the land was not used and taxes were not paid, it reverted to the Sovereign, the State. The right of inheritance was not automatic and could only be approved by the Sovereign/State.

The Jordanians changed the law by assigning gifted land in perpetuity, as if it was purchased and privately owned, including inheritance rights; they also voided payment of taxes. Moreover, according to Jordanian law, selling land to a Jew is considered a capital offense. Thousands of Arab Palestinian land dealers and agents have been murdered by local gangs, or punished with long prison terms. Under this threat, potential sellers were afraid to deal with Jews. Moreover, it was difficult for Israelis to discover who owned land and what land was available.

According to a military order, land registration records (Tabu) are held by the Minhal and are not open to those who are not included in the Jordanian-era registration process, i.e. Jews.

Politicization, not the rule of law

The struggle to save Amona, like the struggle over the evacuation of Jews from the Gaza Strip and Northern Shomron, “The Disengagement,” exposes the politicization of basic institutions of the state – the IDF, Praklitut and the High Court. The “rule of law,” has become simply enforcing arbitrary “laws” made by appointed officials, legal advisors and bureaucrats.

The collusion surrounding “judicial” decisions regarding Amona involves Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit and his opposition to Knesset legislation to save Amona. As Chief Military Advocate General of the IDF between 2004 and 2011, he was responsible for the IDF’s vicious attack on Amona in 2005, for the destruction of Migron and Jewish homes in other areas, and he is responsible for declaring that the land on which Amona is built belongs to Arabs. His involvement in this case, therefore, is a clear conflict-of-interest. He should recuse himself.

Plans to destroy Amona and rebuild it elsewhere are dangerous because they don’t deal with the problem. They only reinforce the Minhal’s authority and its unfair system of determining land ownership.

The only fair and just solution is to adopt the Edmund Levy Commission’s recommendations, including special courts for determining land ownership. Amona’s survival is a test case for the judicial process in Israel and for the rule of law. It is a test case for whether the Government of Israel will act justly and humanely to protect the right of Jews living in Judea and Samaria.

It is a test case for whether elected representatives have any power, and therefore, whether the legislative process is meaningful or meaningless. This is a test case, essentially, of Israeli democracy.

***

WHY AMONA?

The question of land ownership, however, has not been determined by a court, and Arab claimants have not presented any valid proof which entitles them to the land.

By Moshe Dann, JPOST

The decision to destroy 40 homes in Amona by the end of this year exposes the corruption and politicization of basic institutions of the state. This process is simply a judicially backed fraud. The pending destruction of Amona led by a handful of unelected, unaccountable and biased officials of the state compromises Israel’s basic principles.

Amona, therefore, is a test case for Israeli democracy.

Built in 1995 on an uninhabited hilltop overlooking Ofra, and supported by the Housing and Construction Ministry, Amona’s legality was challenged by NGOs Peace Now and Yesh Din, who claimed that the land was privately owned by Palestinians.

The Civil Administration (CA), the legal authority in Judea and Samaria, agreed and the state prosecutor – the state – concurred. Based on this, the High Court of Justice ordered the community destroyed.

The question of land ownership, however, has not been determined by a court, and Arab claimants have not presented any valid proof which entitles them to the land.

Although misrepresented as a judicial decision on the substance of the claim, that was not the nature of the court’s ruling. As a matter of procedure, the High Court does not examine or evaluate evidence and does not decide issues of land ownership. It relies only on what the state presents it with. As long as the state affirmed that Jews had built illegally on private Palestinian land and demanded that the homes in Amona and elsewhere be destroyed, the court was bound to enforce that decision. Although lacking due process, that is the law in Israel.

The problem originates in the fact that the areas conquered by the IDF in the 1967 Six Day War are under “military occupation,” and that the military commander has sole authority there.

Since eastern Jerusalem was incorporated in 1980 and the Golan Heights in 1981, the Gaza Strip was evacuated in 2005 and Areas A and B were given to the Palestinian Authority in the Oslo Agreements in the early 1990s, only Area C of Judea and Samaria remains under military rule; as a branch of the IDF, the CA operates as a separate, unaccountable and non-transparent government.

This is undemocratic and unjust.

When the CA was established, it was given the authority to decide questions of land ownership, among other responsibilities, and decided to accept Jordanian law and procedure – although it was under no obligation to do so since Jordan’s occupation of the area was illegal and rejected by the international community.

Since prior to the Jordanian occupation the area was under the authority of the British Mandate, which was appointed by the League of Nations, i.e. sanctioned by international law, the proper legal basis should be the Mandate. The Mandate incorporated Ottoman land laws which were promulgated in 1858, and initiated land surveys and land distributions to Arab inhabitants.

The Jordanians followed their predecessors, distributing land freely to Arabs and registering land claims, but unilaterally changed the law.

Previously, gifted land came with restrictions and conditions attached, such as using the land (usufruct) within a specific time period (three to 10 years, depending on the category of land) and paying taxes on it. If the land was not used and taxes were not paid, it reverted to the sovereign, the state. The right of inheritance was not automatic and could only be approved by the sovereign/state.

The Jordanians changed the law by assigning gifted land in perpetuity, as if it was purchased and privately owned, including inheritance rights; they also voided payment of taxes. Moreover, under Jordanian law selling land to a Jew is a capital offense. As a result, thousands of Arab Palestinian land dealers and agents have been murdered by local gangs, or sentenced to long prison terms. Under this threat, potential sellers were afraid to deal with Jews.

Moreover, it was difficult for Israelis to discover who owned land and what land was available.

According to a military order, the land registration records (Tabu) are held by the CA and are not open to those who not included in the Jordanian- era registration, i.e. Jews.

The struggle to save Amona, like the struggle over the evacuation of Jews from the Gaza Strip and Northern Shomron, “the disengagement,” exposes the politicization of basic institutions of the state – the IDF, state prosecutor and the High Court. It is not about the “rule of law,” but enforcing arbitrary “laws” made by appointed officials, legal advisers and bureaucrats.

An egregious example of the collusion surrounding “judicial” decisions regarding Amona is Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit’s opposition to Knesset legislation to save Amona. As chief military advocate general of the IDF between 2004 and 2011, he was responsible for the IDF’s vicious attack on Amona in 2005, for the destruction of Migron and Jewish homes in other areas, and is responsible for declaring that the land on which Amona is built belongs to Arabs. His involvement in this case, therefore, is a clear conflict of interest.

Mandelblit’s plan to destroy Amona and rebuild it elsewhere is dangerous because it reinforces the CA’s authority and its unfair system of determining land ownership.

Amona’s survival, therefore, is a test case for the judicial process in Israel and for the rule of law over the dictatorship of military rule. It is a test case for whether the government of Israel will act justly and humanely to protect the right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria. It is a test case for whether elected representatives have any power, and therefore, whether the legislative process is meaningful or meaningless.

This is a test case, essentially, for Israeli democracy.

September 21, 2016 | 40 Comments »

Leave a Reply

40 Comments / 40 Comments

  1. @ honeybee:
    When my chilli de Arbol plants were in full production the local type of Robins used to feed on the leaves and red peppers. I could not believe them birds eating several pods and flying away. My son Yoni used to quip that the birds fueled up to fly jet propelled not wing propelled…
    :)))
    Turkeys: Dad used to bring home for New Year etc, huge turkeys, mostly at that time, nearly seventy years back, range grown. One could not bite into such turkeys meat even after cooking for many hours.
    Meat softening procedure…
    We caught the bird and dad would offer the turkey a couple or more of large shots of brandy. Within minutes the turkey would be totally drunk. A most hilarious sight I may say. Then the turkey was sent to the Shochet. The meat was tender and flavored with brandy.

    Lechaim!

  2. @ CuriousAmerican:
    You just don’t seem to understand either because of pedantism, stupidity or stubbornness…..add in there a touch of Jew phobia….jest a tetch….

    The Jews are realising the 2000 year old dream, renewed every year, and in every generation, and for which so many Jews have been tortured, enslaved, and forcibly converted. Now they are BACK, and trying hard to assemble their own LAND, not only because they are the indigenous people of the Land, but also backed by irrevocable International Treaties and Agreements unanimously agreed to by all the major countries.

    On top of all this, historians and archaeologists are discovering almost every day, that the Jews NEVER left the land by exile or other force. Only a portion did, and there is ample historical proof that all through the period from Hadrian to the reconstitution of Israel, especially during the Middle Ages, when Israel was supposed to have been bereft of Jews, there were dozens and more of thriving communities all over the Land.

    The story about the exile was concocted by those who were actually exiled, and made out that they were ALL Israel, where they were likely only a minor portion. We in the diaspora believed this fable because we were taught it from birth, and knew little or nothing about Jewish life in Palestine in any era after 135.. Our prayerbookss were written specifically to deliver this message, in ignorance of the real facts.

    But be sure and certain, that Jews in Israel, right through the Byzantine era and the Muslim period, proliferated in Israel.

    The World’s most famed cartographer, linguist and scholar, Adriaan Reland, (authored his book as Hadriani Relandi) left a book “Palaestena ex Monumentis Veteris illustrata”, published in 1714 in Utrecht.

    He dealt extensively, in great detail, with the conditions from around the end of the 17th century, in which he said that in the whole country, there were not more than a few hundred Arabs, that the Jews outnumbered by many times, Muslims and Christians together. The largest Muslim group he mentioned was of about 125, a single family group or clan, along the coast, maybe Yoffa (?) outnumbered several times by Jews. He enumerated in his census every single person in every town and village he found which had been mentioned in the Torah and Talmud.

    He has been forgotten today, and never made a stir because his book, written in Latin, was never translated. He died shortly after.

    Some may find this interesting. I believe there’s a copy of the book in the Smithsonian or the National Library or similar institution.

  3. An egregious example of the collusion surrounding “judicial” decisions regarding Amona is Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit’s opposition to Knesset legislation to save Amona. As chief military advocate general of the IDF between 2004 and 2011, he was responsible for the IDF’s vicious attack on Amona in 2005, for the destruction of Migron and Jewish homes in other areas, and is responsible for declaring that the land on which Amona is built belongs to Arabs. His involvement in this case, therefore, is a clear conflict of interest.

    This is the reason why Netanyahu appointed Mandebilt… so he could carry on his covert policy against settlers and nationalist Jews. Mandebilt is the same crook who has intentionally ignored yaalons crimes of abusing his authority as DM by interfering with the course of justice. Mandelbilt is the one who needs to be investigated for his willfull ommission to cover up the crimes…. Mandebilt begins trivial case after trivial case to make it look like he is a busy bee but these failure cases, designed to fail, are purely there to create red herring distraction until Israelis forget what a criminal Yaalon is. Meanwhile innocent Jews are lying in Jail and being harassed in order to preserve the fairy tale that Yaalon was not a criminal. Behind Mandebilt and Yaalon is Netanyahu.

    Israel needs a paradigm shift to bring all these swindlers and crooks and all the leftist liars to the prisoners dock for adjudication and Justice.

    It appears that the leftist high court has colluded in perpetuating this set of lies which seeks to swindle the entire world Jewish community out of its homeland in Judea samaria. The foreign funded politicians and NGO’s are part of this intentional massive swindle of the Jewish people which has also cost the lives of many Jews.

    My view is that there is no punishment too extreme for these lying, swindling traitors of their own people……. the names Pinochet, Pol Pot and Erdogan,(ooops I forgot Duterte) come to mind when speculating on possible solutions to this massive evil scheme funded by foreigners but facilitated, enabled and executed by Israeli Jews.

  4. SHmuel HaLevi Said:

    little, red, one inch long fire hot peppers.

    Chili peppiness !!!!!! Once ,when I was younger, my cousins came to visit, I split those chilies and rubbed them on the toilet paper and seat. He hasn’t forgiven me to this day.

  5. I will accept that type of pre set objective… 🙂
    I am having a whale of a time growing back my Chilli de Arbol bushes. I had two producing hundreds of peppers, little, red, one inch long fire hot peppers.
    They can live up to 30 years. They died during construction. Now I have one little seedling still going on.

  6. CuriousAmerican Said:

    But both sides are restrictive when it comes to ownership of land.

    Sugar about 10 or so yrs ago I was in a “battle” with a “neighbor” over a road and land use. Thar ain’t no fight like a fight over road and use, been in several. I ,must admit, I was highly restrictive if not down right hostile. I won !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  7. I prefer not to address certain individuals who clearly have a pre set objective or more than one.
    Much as every sovereign nation has rights to its land, so do we. The limits of the Land of Israel are recorded in the Torah, aka Bible, nekudah. Find the specific paragraphs at will. Further. There is no foreign authority with rights to change that. Is that clear?
    The Brutish, Germans, Romans, French, the US and anyone else can kick dust up their back alleys for all I care.
    We own the Land of Israel as determined about 3200 years ago.
    The aborted, newfangled. imaginary “people” who were imported via Hijrah with great help from the Brutish may as well turn around and hoop it back to their sand dunes in Arabia, Sudan, etc. Hoop, hoop, hoop.

    Problem.
    Our cardboard prop totting leader, Netanyahu, will only speech about or gesticulate eloquently. No balls to call our national rights and interests. He has frozen Jewish growth into our lands as all of the hatched Oslo folk is ordained to do.
    That is our problem
    King Hussein apparent ruler of a make believe kingdom fabricated by the Brutish had no sovereign right to allocate our land nor did any other local or international body.

  8. Jordan, a kingdom fabricated by the Brutish in part of Eretz Israel, NEVER had sovereign authority over Yehuda and Shomron. Or Jerusalem. No one ever recognized such authority.
    Ergo…
    Hussein and his associates did not have sovereign rights to assign, sell or otherwise dispose that land which is not theirs.
    The governments… of Israel KNOWING of the above INTENTIONALLY even today use “jordanian Law” on real estate transactions even within so called recognized Jewish villages, farms, industrial parks, etc.

    Our tragic problem is that “our governments” lied, distorts, hides and misleads and have used our people as punching bags to protect the special interests of generals, “families”, and of course kibbutzim that in their majority hold lands not theirs.

  9. @ Ted Belman:
    I am offended that you would suggest that such restriction is akin to the the PA policy of killing Arabs who sell to Jews.

    I made it quite clear that Jews did not murder over it. Look at the post.

    But in terms of exclusivity, there is much similarity. I cited Aryeh King, the Rabbis, and we both know the JNF had a restrictive covenant which would not be legal in America.

    I have no illusions that the Waqf uses subterfuge. They do.

    But both sides do.

    Both sides see land ownership as an extension of sovereignty, not just property; and hence both sides are rather exclusive.

    I hope the Jews get to remain in Amona; but my observation was NOT offensive.

  10. @ honeybee:

    You’re back Sugar, where yawl been all summer long.

    Been busy.

    CuriousAmerican Said:

    My statement was heavily qualified and not offensive.

    Hahahhahahhhha You mean your were offensive in a “restrained” manner???

    Not at all. Three times, I said Arabs were murderous and Jews were not.

    However, between the state of Israel, and the JNF, 90% of the land is owned by either the Jewish state or the JNF.

    Israeli law allows the restrictive covenant of the JNF.

    This is not to say the Waqf is not restrictive. It is very much restrictive, as well.

    But both sides are restrictive when it comes to ownership of land.

    Condemn the Arabs for murder, but since the JNF is restrictive, one cannot condemn the Arabs for restrictive actions – only for their murderous reactions.


  11. NOW THIS IS WHAT I WROTE
    …. (shortened and cut down)

    I gave a pointed exception

    That it is a capital offense [by which it was clear that I meant Arabs ] is indeed terrible.

    But, while Jews do not kill land sellers,

    Now, it is true that Jews do NOT kill such land resellers or agents, as do the Arabs. They probably take them to court. Coercion of a lesser nature.

    But both sides are rather tribal when it comes to land.

    To that end, I hope the Jews of Amona get to say. I decry Arab murderous violence.

    But ease up on the charge of exclusiveness.

    Neither side budges one inch when it comes to land.

    Ted, you made it sound like I did NOT make that exception. I did. At least three times, I noted that Arabs were murderous unlike Jews. I said the Jews of Amona should stay.

    THERE WAS NOTHING OFFENSIVE IN MY POST.

    But to the point:

    Right after independence, Israel nationalized all free land (around 85%) and made it state land, under Jewish control, only available for lease, not purchase, even to Jews.

    Israel then using Absentee Laws, took over Absentee Property and swapped it with JNF lands, making the available private stock even less.

    Herzl spoke of acquiring land which by covenant much never be sold to Gentiles.

    Private held land in Israel is rare; and not typical. Leases are more common. Until recently, the JNF would not lease to Gentiles – that restrictive practice had to go to court, and has not been fully adjudicated but was circumvented with a land swap.

    So, even though Jews are not going to kill, like the Arabs, there is social, religious, and strong pressure that once land is in Jewish hands, it must not pass into Gentile possession.

    Restrictive covenants are legal.

    While Israel National News is right to condemn the Arabs over murder, they are wrong to condemn the Arabs for a religious insularity that the Jewish community also express, albeit less homicidally.

    They want the Arabs to sell land to Jews; but would they ever entertain selling land to an Arab?

    THE TELEGRAPH

    (picture caption) Aryeh King: ‘It’s written in the Torah that Jews cannot sell property to non-Jews. It’s very simple.’

    Other activities include persuading Jewish house owners in other parts of Jerusalem not to sell to Arabs

    On top of this, Rabbis have called to not even rent to Arabs

    HAARETZ
    Dozens of Top Israeli Rabbis Sign Ruling to Forbid Rental of Homes to Arabs

    Look, I am not hostile to Israel on this. I know Israel rents the land the Knesset is on from the Orthodox Christian Church.

    Personally, I believe that land the Knesset is on should be confiscated and compensated under eminent domain. So I am not against Jews buying land.

    But I would like all to recognize that Jews no less than Arabs view the land as a sacred trust, and both sides work against land sales to the outsider. The only difference is the degree of reaction to the sale.

    My post was not offensive. I was quick to point out that Jews do not murder.

    But the same religious Jewish pioneers who are upset that Arabs will not sell to them, would never dare sell to Arabs.

    That was my point. The rare property which is truly privately owned, and not leased, is not typical.

    But the fact is: That both sides refuse to sell land to outsiders, and both sides engage in subterfuge to buy what little private land is left.

    WHAT IS MOST IRONIC IS THIS

    In 1947, Hollywood made a movie called Gentleman’s Agreement, which condemned restrictive covenants excluding Jews from housing in Manhattan.

    Yet, at roughly the same time, Israel was setting up restrictive covenants into law.

    I was not offensive.

  12. @ honeybee:
    There isn’t enough meat in being a trickster, they want huge returns, innocent blood, and Jew torment. “Trickster” has a benevolent connotation…to an Arab like trying to steal Jewish land by forged Title Deeds and helped by the High Court(they must laugh themselves sick at the High Court). But sometimes they are that as well, leading up to the violent denuement.

    Did you find out yet about the Chit-Chat section. It used to prominently mentioned but seems to have modestly disappeared. Ted will tell us.

  13. LAND LAW IN JORDAN

    So much for Israel; what is the situation in its neighbors, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority? Under the direct instructions of King Husayn23, the government of Jordan in 1973 passed the “Law for Preventing the Sale of Immovable Property to the Enemy.”24The “enemy” is defined in Article 2 as “any man or judicial body [corporation] of Israeli citizenship living in Israel or acting on its behalf.” Under Article 4 of this law any Jordanian citizen who sold land in Jordan or the West Bank to the “enemy” faced the death penalty and forfeiture of all his property to the state:

    The sale of Immovable property against the provisions of this law constitutes a crime against state security and well being, punishable by death, and the confiscation of all the culprit’s Immovable and moveable possessions.

    In addition, Article 3 deemed the sale of land to any alien (i.e., a non-Arab) without permission from the Council of Ministers a security offense punishable by death.

    According to PA Attorney General Khalid al-Qidra, Jordan had sentenced 172 people to death under this law.25 Amnesty International reported that as of 1988 many of the convictions were in absentia and that there had been no executions.26 However, PA Justice Minister Meddein claimed that Jordan had executed 10 violators.27

    Whatever its application, the Jordanian Parliament repealed the 1973 law in 1995, following the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan. Milder statutes adopted in its place still effectively bar Israelis from purchasing or leasing land in Jordan. The Law on Economic Boycott and Banning Dealing with the Enemy (Article 6) states that “it is impermissible for foreign persons or corporate entities that do not hold an Arab nationality to purchase, lease, or own directly or indirectly any immovable property in the kingdom.”28 The only exceptions require high level political authorization.

    LAND LAW UNDER THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY

    Enforcement of the old Jordanian law. The PA’s justice minister, Meddein, has repeatedly stated his intention to enforce the 1973 Jordanian law.29 It is doubtful, however, that this law has any legal standing in territories under control of the PA. The Oslo 2 Agreement of September 1995 specifically deals with regulations of this sort and renders them null and void in PA territories. Oslo 2 states that any legislation “inconsistent with the provisions of the DOP,30 [or] this Agreement … shall have no effect and shall be void ab initio.”31Imposing the death penalty on Palestinians for selling land to Israelis clearly violates at least two provisions of Oslo 2.32

    The new Palestinian law. The Palestinian Legislative Council has passed the first reading of a draft law intended to supersede the 1973 Jordanian statute.33This new law reportedly bar sales to “occupiers” whom it defines as the “Israeli occupying government and its civil and military institutions, settlements and whomever is under their authority.” It declares the sale of land in “Palestine” to such occupiers to be “high treason” punishable “according to the criminal law.” And it states that foreign violators have “committed harm to the national security and will be punished according to the criminal law.” The draft law is vague about punishment, but according to the Jordanian Penal Code, which is still in effect on the West Bank, the crime for treason is death.34

    According to PA legislators, the term “Palestine” in the law refers to all the territory of the Palestine Mandate, meaning all of Israel.35 Under this proposed statute, then, an Israeli Arab who sells any land in Israel to an Israeli Jew would face the death penalty. Such extraterritorial threats receive added weight from the reported formation by the PA of a shadowy force known as “The Long Arm,” whose task is to track down and execute Palestinians living anywhere in the world who have sold land to Israeli Jews.36

    It hardly needs pointing out that this new Palestinian law would, like the 1973 Jordanian law it replaces, directly violate the Oslo 2 Accords.

    CONCLUSION

    In sum, the Palestinian Authority has successfully managed to charge Israel with the very sins that it itself is guilty of. The most striking instances of this success, perhaps, are the many academics and journalists who repeat and reinforce Palestinian charges of Israeli discrimination with regard to land ownership. This climate of distortion has two consequences. First, it misleads politicians, diplomats, and others about the basic facts that underlie the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Second, it encourages Palestinians to harbor unreasonable hopes and make exorbitant demands. These twin problems reinforce each other, and thereby make a genuine peace that much more difficult to achieve.

    This presents a particularly bad precedent for the negotiation of such final status issues as Jerusalem, water rights, and the drawing of borders. It is likely that these final status issues will also be subject to campaigns to portray Israel as an unprovoked aggressor and Palestinians and Arabs as blameless victims. Indeed, there are signs that this has already begun.

    PER BEAR

    ACTUALLY IT SHOWS WHY A 2 STATE SOLUTION IS PURE MALARKEY!!!!

    ONE CAN NOT MAKE PEACE WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY FOR SELLING LAND TO JEWS AND IT IS NOT JUST ON THE BOOKS FOR SHOW AS THEY HAVE USED IT MULTIPLE TIMES

    37

  14. LAND LAW IN ISRAEL

    The present landholding system in Israel can be traced back to the events of nearly a century ago, when the Fifth Zionist Congress meeting in 1901 created a private charitable organization called the Jewish National Fund (JNF) with the intent to purchase land for the resettlement of Jews in their ancient homeland. By the eve of statehood, the JNF had acquired a total of 936,000 dunums of land; another 800,000 dunums had been acquired by other Jewish organizations or individuals.11 These holdings amounted to some 8.6 percent of the total land of what would later be Israel; of the rest, more than 70 percent were public lands vested in the British Mandatory authorities.12 All the lands purchased by the JNF remained in JNF hands; these were never sold, either to Jews or Arabs, but instead were leased on a long—term basis for kibbutzim and other forms of Jewish settlement.

    With the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the new government inherited the state-owned lands formerly in the possession of British Mandatory authority as well as property abandoned by Arab refugees. The government sold some of this land to the JNF, and retained the rest. In 1960, the Israeli parliament passed a series of land laws including the “Basic Law: Israel Lands” that defined government-owned and JNF-owned land both as “Israel lands.” It reiterated the principle that these lands would only be leased, not sold. While the JNF retained ownership of its lands, the 1960 laws turned administrative responsibility for these (as well as government-owned) properties to a newly-created agency, the Israel Land Administration (ILA).13

    The land-owning situation in Israel today is as follows: 80.4 percent is owned by the government, 13.1 percent is privately owned by the JNF, and 6.5 percent is evenly divided between private Arab and Jewish owners. Thus, the ILA administers 93.5 percent of the land in Israel.14 Put differently, 93.5 percent of the land is unavailable for private ownership; such land is sold neither to Jews nor to Arabs but is leased out by the ILA. Thus, while it is true that Israeli law prevents the sale of state—owned land to Israeli Arabs, this alone is extremely misleading, for it is equally unavailable for sale to Jewish citizens of Israel.

    ARAB ACCESS TO LAND IN ISRAEL

    This then raises the question, how do the Israeli Arabs fare in terms of land? Here we must distinguish between government, JNF, and private lands.

    State-owned lands. Israeli Arabs have equal access to state-owned land—four-fifths of the entire country—both in theory and in practice. Indeed, about half of the land they cultivate is directly leased to them by the Israeli government through the ILA.15

    Moreover, when it comes to residential land, the ILA sometimes offers Israeli Arabs more favorable terms from than it does to Israeli Jews. Thus, the ILA charged the equivalent of $24,000 for a capital lease on a quarter of an acre in new Jewish communities near Beersheva while Bedouin families in the nearby community of Rahat paid only $150 for the same amount of land.16 In a different case, when a Jewish policeman from Beersheva, Eleizer Avitan, applied to the ILA to lease land in a Bedouin community under the same highly subsidized terms available to the Bedouins, the ILA refused to lease him land there under any terms, so he sued. Israel’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ILA, saying that what might be viewed as ILA discrimination against the Jewish citizen Avitan was justified as affirmative action for Bedouin citizens.17

    JNF lands. The purpose of the JNF, according to both its original charter and its 1953 Israeli charter is to purchase land for the settlement of Jews, and this has been interpreted to mean that JNF land should not be leased, at least on a long-term basis, to non-Jews.18There are, thus, formal restrictions on the lease of JNF land to Arabs. That JNF lands are now administered by a government agency does not change this restriction, for JNF land is privately owned and to lease it on exactly equal terms to Jewish and Arab Israelis would violate the 1960 agreement that placed JNF lands under government administration.

    So much for official restrictions. In practice, JNF land is leased to Arab citizens of Israel, for both short- and long-term use. Thus, the ILA has leased on a yearly basis JNF-owned land in the Besor Valley (Wadi Shallala), near Kibbutz Re’em, to Bedouins for use as pasture.19 Arab citizens have also leased JNF-owned land for housing purposes via a legal device that evades the restrictions against precisely such long-term use: The land in question is traded to the government so that it can be leased out and the JNF receives other land in return.20Such swaps have sometimes taken place under threat of court action.

    Private lands. There are no restrictions on the purchase of private land in Israel. Israeli Arabs or non-citizens, including Arab foreigners, may freely purchase it. The Israeli authorities have placed no obstacles in the way of such purchases, which are proceeding, as Israel’s Deputy Housing Minister Meir Porush recently noted:

    The Palestinian Authority is encouraging purchases of land in Israeli territory by wealthy Palestinians. It is a matter of Palestinian figures tied to the real estate business, and living mainly in London, who try to purchase homes and lands in Jerusalem through agents and lawyers who live mainly in Ramallah.21

    Clearly, many journalists reporting on Israel’s land policies have uncritically accepted charges leveled by activists and Palestinian spokesmen. Typifying the problem was a New York Times article in which reporter Joel Greenberg made four major errors in one sentence:

    In Israel, Palestinians cannot buy state land, which is 91 percent of the country’s territory, and state land held by the Jewish National Fund cannot even be leased to Israeli Arabs.22

    In fact, state land amounts not to 91 percent of Israel’s territory but to roughly 80 percent; neither Arabs nor Jews can buy state land; the Jewish National Fund holds no state land; and JNF land is leased, with some restrictions, to Israeli Arabs.

  15. Ted, I cited quotes from Women in Green, and Aryeh King.

    I made a pointed note that Jews do not kill; and I said Killing was terrible.

    But, I am correct in noting that both sides forbid the sales of land to outsiders.
    And I cited rabbis as well.

    My statement was heavily qualified and not offensive.

    The amount of private land held in Israel is small, sinnc the state nationalized it after 1948, all state land. This makes the sale of private land rare by Jews to Gentiles very rare, and discouraged.

    Land is most often only leased.

  16. @ CuriousAmerican:
    LISTEN CAREFULLY. THEY HAVE A LAW AGAINST SELLING WITH A PENALTY OF DEATH. WE DO NOT HAVE A LAW RESTRICTING WHO LAND CAN BE SOLD TO.

    The fact that Jewish law restricts the sale of land in Israel is a principle in Judaism but it is not the law of the land and there is no penalty for violating it.

    What’s your point?

  17. Ted, I cited quotes from Women in Green, and Aryeh King.

    I made a pointed note that Jews do not kill; and I said Killing was terrible.

    But, I am correct in noting that both sides forbid the sales of land to outsiders.
    And I cited rabbis as well.

    My statement was heavily qualified and not offensive.

    The amount of private land held in Israel is small, sinnc the state nationalized it after 1948, all state land. This makes the sale of private land rare.

  18. Hillel, please correct your text/video. There were two nations that recognized Transjordan’s seizure and annexation of Judea and Samaria, Great Britain and that bastion of democracy Pakistan, not long after it itself was invented with the partition of India into two states. After the annexation, the King changed the name of his country, which he considered no longer “trans” the Jordan, to “the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.”

  19. @ Ted Belman:Actually it is the Pal Authority that has the death penalty for selling land to Jews. Abbas as in fact strengthen this. This is one of the reasons Palestinians will lie when they sell land to Israeli Jews. They almost always use a middle man to try and cover their tracks on the sale of the land.

    The JNF was started with private donations to buy the land to build a Jewish State. So JNF does not sell land to non Jews.

  20. Hey CA, I did not approve your comment because you wrote “Israeli/Jewish law forbids the sale of land to us goyim.”
    This is incorrect on a number of levels. Individuals, incorporated or not, can sell to whom they want. The JNF is an “individual” and can sell to whom they want. They have the right to choose not to sell to gentiles if they so choose.The millions of Jews who contribute money to the JNF do so on the understanding they are helping to make Jewish Israel stronger. They did not contribute to the JNF so that it would benefit Arabs or other non-Jews.

    Jewish law may prohibit selling land in Israel to non Jews but there is no penalty for doing so.

    I am offended that you would suggest that such restriction is akin to the the PA policy of killing Arabs who sell to Jews.

  21. Look, I do NOT want to see Israeli Jews evicted from Amona; so I hope this can be solved equitably.

    But there is a touch of irony in this article:

    FROM THE ARTICLE, ABOVE

    Moreover, according to Jordanian law, selling land to a Jew is considered a capital offense.

    That it is a capital offense is indeed terrible.

    But, while Jews do not kill land sellers, Israeli/Jewish law is just as exclusive in that it also forbids the sale of land to outsiders: the goyim.

    WOMEN IN GREEN

    The JNF protocol specifically prohibits selling land ownership and selling any rights to non-Jews.

    Though this has been tested in the courts, whereby a ridiculous land swap arrangement has been suggested, the matter has not been fully settled.

    Rabbis have forbidden Jews to even rent to Arabs.

    Dozens of Top Israeli Rabbis Sign Ruling to Forbid Rental of Homes to Arabs

    Dozens of Israel’s municipal chief rabbis have signed on to a new religious ruling that would forbid the rental of homes to gentiles in a move particularly aimed against Arabs, Haaretz has learned.
    The religious ruling comes just months after a group of 18 prominent rabbis, including the chief rabbi of Safed, signed a call urging Jews to refrain from renting or selling apartments to non-Jews.

    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/dozens-of-top-israeli-rabbis-sign-ruling-to-forbid-rental-of-homes-to-arabs-1.329312

    Now, it is true that Jews do NOT kill such land resellers or agents, as do the Arabs. They probably take them to court. Coercion of a lesser nature.

    But both sides are rather tribal when it comes to land.

    To that end, I hope the Jews of Amona get to say. I decry Arab murderous violence.

    But ease up on the charge of exclusiveness.

    Neither side budges one inch when it comes to land.

    Israel Land Fund (INF) Arieh King has publically defended this policy.

    THE TELEGRAPH

    (picture caption)Aryeh King: ‘It’s written in the Torah that Jews cannot sell property to non-Jews. It’s very simple.’

    Other activities include persuading Jewish house owners in other parts of Jerusalem not to sell to Arabs.

    “Everything is done in a legal way”, Mr King emphasises. “If i know a Jew wants to sell to an Arab, I will try to convince that Jew not to, first because it’s against the Jewish law. There’s a very clear order from God, written in the Torah, that Jews cannot sell property to non-Jews (emphasis mine). It’s very simple.

    To that end, how many of those Jewish community members who decry Arab land exclusivity would consider selling land to Arabs?

    Probably none.

    Both sides consider the land a sacred trust. So, while the Jews of Amona should be allowed to stay … perhap Israel National News should not be condemning the Arabs for an exclusive policy that Jews themselves also practice – albeit less murderously.

  22. Moshe Dann writes to say:

    There is no “rule of law” in this and other cases because no court has examined documents, or claims that the land is “private.” The land in dispute is NOT privately owned.

    The Minhal Ezrachi and Praklitut — “the State” — misled Bagatz based on the land registration by the Jordanians. They ignored Ottoman, Mandate and Israeli law.

    Questions of land ownership are complicated and must be resolved by courts which use professionals and experts, not by anonymous bureaucrats.

    There is no such thing as “absentee land.” Either the land is legally owned, or not. That can only be determined by a court.

    Knesset can and must clarify who makes the “rule of law” and what the law is.

  23. This is exactly what I’ve been asking for very many years. The amount of land given by the Turkish Sultan to wealthy families was tiny. That sold to a handful of Jewish philanthropists was miniscule and now mostly occupied by Arabs. The vast majority devolved from the Turks to the L of N, to the British Mandate in a trustee capacity, and then to the Jewish State. Maybe for a breath of time, to the UN (not sure) How the blazes could more than a million Arab fellahin and a few small shopkeepers ever get genuine title deeds to any of the land.

    And I knew a family who told me they’d been there from just after the Crusades, but when I went with the man to the Land Registry, his deeds were faked, and they’d crossed the Jordan into Israel only 5 years before.

    Bigger thieves, liars, and bandits than Arabs have never lived.

    As a side-note, I often saw in Arab grocery shops, all kinds of staple goods in sacks and boxes marked UNRWA. They got them with faked documents. I saw Arabs with bunchs of cards. Faking and collecting cards from emigrating or dead Arabs was the “custom”.