Just when B’Tselem declares Israel to be an Apartheid State up springs another liberal Zionist group

 Na'amod decides that anti-Zionism, i.e. challenging Jewish supremacy is a step too far

Last Sunday I attended a webinar held by the latest kid on the block Na'amod, which styles itself as ‘British Jews against occupation’. Na'amod is not the first such group to confine itself to Israel’s ‘occupation’ i.e. Israel’s rule over the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

What declaring oneself against ‘the occupation’ means is making a distinction between the West Bank/ East Jerusalem and the rest of Israel. As B’Tselem’s statement made clear there is but one regime over the whole territory from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River.

There are different rules and systems of administration for Palestinians, depending on where they live, but everywhere Jews have superior rights. Palestinians in pre-1967 Israel have an inferior version of Israeli citizenship but it is superior to the military regime governing Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. That is why Israel has repeatedly tried to transfer Israeli Palestinians into the West Bank something that they fear is part of the Trump Plan.

Every part of Greater Israel is under one regime whose guiding principle is Jewish supremacy.  Another word for Jewish supremacy is Zionism.

I say this because there were some in the audience last Sunday who were clearly Zionists. One of them proclaimed in the chat that ‘this is biased’ to which I took objection. I explained the workings of the West Bank Mediterranean to the Jordan River Gaza Trump Plan Greater Israel 1950 Absentee Property Law, introduced by the Israeli Labor Party government, which enabled Palestinians to be dispossessed by treating them as the Orwellian ‘Present Absentees’. In other words even if they were present in the Israeli state and had not been expelled they were to be treated as absent even if they had only fled a mile or so from their village because of the fighting.

I explained that this law, which is being used to dispossess Palestinians in East Jerusalem has never been used against Jews. In other words it is a nakedly racist law. It would appear that this was too much for Naomi and her well meaning liberal Zionist friends.

Although no Zionist was removed after a short time. I found myself ‘bumped’. Thinking that maybe it was my computer I rejoined only to be thrown out again. The third time there was a notice that ‘the host has removed you’. Although Zionists of any stripe were welcome at the meeting, anti-Zionists who made their views known were not welcome.

To add insult to injury, ‘Naomi’ then wrote me a letter thanking me for my attendance at the webinar! It is clear from the letter, which mentions Yachad and Peace Now by name that Na’mod represents an affirmation of Zionism, not a break with this Jewish supremacy, by seeking to put create an artificial distinction between Israel pre-1967 and Israel post-1967.

As B’Tselem makes clear, there is no Green Line between Israel and the West Bank, neither physically nor on Israeli maps. It only exists in the minds of Zionists in the West who use the fiction of ‘two states’ in order to justify the present Occupation. If Na’amod are genuinely sincere about opposing the Occupation then they also need to abandon support for 2 states and Zionism.

2 states is supported by groups such as the Israeli Embassy front Labour Friends of Israel and the Jewish Labour Movement, both of which refuse to condemn any aspect of military rule in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. 2 states  exists solely in the minds of those who wish to perpetuate military rule over 5 million Palestinians.

As Palestinians reject the 2 states paradigm liberal Zionists cling to it ever more firmly. 2 States provides a smokescreen for continued military rule over the West Bank and the expansion of settlements.

It is of course welcome that a new group has sprung up amongst British Jews but it is not unique. Jews for Justice for Palestinians are the original 2 state group and they have made little impression as their politics have become rapidly outdated and irrelevant. JfJP have long sought, for reasons I’ve never understood, affiliation to the Board of Deputies.

Yachad actually did manage to achieve affiliation to the Board as it is an explicitly Zionist group unlike JfJP. Na’mod will have to decide where it stands on the Jewish supremacist nature of Israel, i.e. its Zionist nature.  The omens don’t seem good

Tony Greenstein

See Israel Democracy Institute uncovers shocking racism in 'apartheid state'

Letter to Na’omod

Dear Naomi,

You don't need to thank me for joining you at Sunday's webinar on Settlement Activity and Dispossession in East Jerusalem, just as I don't need to thank you for the fact that I was 'bumped' from the webinar for asking difficult questions and making certain observations about the causes of the repression that your speakers were explaining to us.

What the two speakers, Mohammed El-Kurd and Sami Ershied, were saying was very moving as was their description of their experiences which is why it is a pity that you moved to prevent any discussion of the causes of the demolitions, evictions and settler terrorism that they spoke about.

However without seeking to tackle the causes of their plight you will certainly not remedy the effects. I realise that you are too young to remember Apartheid in South Africa but it is as if you were to have condemned the brutal policies of the South Africa government in Soweto without calling into question Apartheid itself.

I should add that nothing in the history of South Africa Apartheid compares to the use by Israel of planes and missiles in bombing refugee camps and ordinary peoples’ housing in Gaza, Jenin and elsewhere. Nor is there any counterpart to the thousands of Palestinian homes which have been demolished.

However horrific South Africa Apartheid was it does not compare to the bloodshed and brutality of Zionism in Israel.

The dispossession and terror that the speakers experienced at the hands of the settlers and the Israeli state did not come out of nowhere. They are not an accident of god. They are the result of the Zionist Project which, from its very inception, sought to remove the Palestinians from first the land and then the country.

Zionism, unlike settler colonial movements in Southern Africa, dressed this up in the language of 'mutual recognition', 'self determination' and other euphemisms. Zionism was a Janus faced movement which spoke with two tongues. Out of one face it preached mutual respect, brotherhood of man and tolerance. Out of the other face it breathed transfer, expulsion, massacre and dispossession.

This tactic of Zionism, which deliberately said one thing and did another, was best summed up in the 1930 Hope-Simpson Report which the British Government commissioned as a result of the 1929 riots in Palestine.

The effect of the Zionist colonisation policy on the Arab.— Actually the result of the purchase of land in Palestine by the Jewish National Fund has been that land has been extraterritorialised. It ceases to be land from which the Arab can gain any advantage either now or at any time in the future. Not only can he never hope to lease or to cultivate it, but, by the stringent provisions of the lease of the Jewish National Fund, he is deprived for ever from employment on that land. Nor can anyone help him by purchasing the land and restoring it to common use. The land is in mortmain and inalienable. It is for this reason that Arabs discount the professions of friendship and good will on the part of the Zionists in view of the policy which the Zionist Organisation deliberately adopted.

I understand that Na’amod is connected to If Not Now as opposed to Jewish Voice for Peace which is an explicitly anti-Zionist group. From what I understand Na'amod harbours illusions that it can persuade synagogues to break away from the Board of Deputies.

The Board represents the most reactionary section of British Jewry.  British Jews themselves have moved significantly to the right from the days, 80 years ago, when Jews formed the backbone of the left.  Ever since the 1960’s, with the temporary exception of the Blair years, British Jewry has voted overwhelmingly for the Conservatives in the past half a century.

We saw the results of this with the fake anti-Semitism attacks on Labour’s most left-wing leader ever, Jeremy Corbyn.

The question is whether you are going to following the path of Yachad and try to reconcile Zionism with Justice and Peace or whether you are going to follow B’Tselem which has concluded that the Israeli state is an Apartheid State.

It is a stark and binary choice but any other decision and you will be fooling yourself and others.  Zionism has always been a Jewish Supremacist movement and Labour Zionism, its ‘left-wing’ has been the most racist of all.

The choice is yours.

Tony Greenstein

Letter from Na’mod

Thank you for joining us at Sunday's webinar on Settlement Activity and Dispossession in East Jerusalem, co-hosted with Free Jerusalem.

Free Jerusalem have contributed to this document, which provides more detailed information about the dispossession of Palestinians and settlement activity ongoing in East Jerusalem.

If you were unable to attend the event live, would like to watch it back or wish to send it on, you can find the recording here.

We were extremely grateful for the chance to hear from Mohammed El-Kurd and Sami Ershied, J.D, and for the excellent questions asked by many of the attendees. One of the questions which came up several times was, 'How can I help?'

If you are in the UK, please write to your MP and ask them to raise this issue with UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, and to attend the APPG Palestine parliamentary briefing on this issue. This is being held on Wednesday 3rd February 2-3pm, with Mohammed joined by Hagit Ofran from Peace Now's Settlement Watch. Yachad have prepared a template which you can use for this.

We have seen that international pressure can and does work: in 2011, an international campaign forced the Jewish National Fund (KKL) to delay the eviction of the Sumarin family from their home in Silwan. Under the latest evictions orders, the family are once again facing displacement from their own home and their community at the hands of the JNF.

If you are Jewish, please consider joining our movement. We are British Jews making our voices heard: the occupation must be opposed by our community with Actions not Words.

We are a grassroots movement and depend on donations from our supporters to cover our costs and continue our work. If you can support us with a donation we would be incredibly grateful.

Please look out for our next webinar, which will be held next month!

Na'amod

Sabra & Shatilla - Israeli State Archives Report on Cabinet Meeting

This was originally posted in March 2013 but an update has marked it as posted today - it is of historical interest only

Sharon in 1983: Israel could be accused of genocide

State Archives release protocols from dramatic cabinet meeting discussing Sabra and Shatila report on same day Emil Grunzweig was murdered at a Peace Now protest. 'They say we disregarded intelligence, that includes you Mr. Prime Minister,' Defense Minister Sharon says to PM Begin as news of murder breaks

Slaughtered by the Phalangists as the Israeli Military provided lighting via flares and searchlights

 

 Roi Mandel

Published:     02.21.13, 17:42 / Israel News

"If we adopt this report, our ill-wishers and naysayers will claim that what happened in the (Sabra and Shatila) camp was genocide,"  Defense Minister Ariel Sharon warned the cabinet in 1983 during a special meeting dealing with the findings of the Cohen Report on the Sabra and Shatila massacre in the First Lebanon War.

Yediot the day after the murder of left-wing protester Emil Grunzweig by Israeli fascists

Sharon refused to resign, as the external fact-finding mission's report had recommended, and repeatedly stressed that he and then Prime Minister Menachem Begin were in the same boat. Adopting the report, Sharon claimed, would "leave a mark of Cain on us for generations to come."

Peace Now Demonstration after massacre

Raful Eitan - commander-in-chief of Israel's army

Sharon - the Butcher of Beirut

Thirty years later, the State Archives on Thursday cleared for publication the protocols of cabinet meetings from the early 1980s, specifically those dealing with the outcome of Cohen Report and the death of Peace Now activist Emil Grunzweig. The main meeting held following the publication of the report by Chief High Court Justice Yitzhak Cohen took place on Febuary 10, 1983 - the day Grunzwieg was killed.

Sharon arrived late. Prime Minister Begin noted that Sharon had informed him of a Peace Now protest being held near his farm causing him to run late.

Sharon eventually arrived but not before all those present called for a full implementation of the report's recommendations, despite the price Sharon would have to pay - stepping down as defense minister.

Sharon, whose resignation was recommended in the report, as well as a desicion barring him from ever holding the Defense Ministry portfolio again, arrived very tense, and began lashing out.

Memorial in South Lebanese to the two thousand plus victims of the Lebanese fascists and Israeli army

"I am not keen on getting into personal reflections nor searching for victims and scapegoats. On the face of it there are parts of the report that could, and should be adopted. However, I found parts which in my opinion should not be accepted. The question is much broader than the personal question - of which people seem to focus on ceaselessly - of whether Sharon will go or not.
"The chapter regarding indirect responsibility is the most severe in my opinion. The committee determined that the State of Israel, not just the government of Israel, or the Israel Defense Forces are responsible. The committee determined that not only did the possibility of the massacre exist, it was also known to the political and military echelons, and they chose willingly and knowingly to ignore it.

"That includes all of us, including you Mr. Prime Minister, each and every one of us. I cannot stress this enough - knowingly ignored, all of us," he continued to stress.

Then came the warning: "If we adopt this report, all our ill-wishers and naysayers will claim that what happened in the camp was genocide. Not to mention the fact that the committee itself didn’t even seem to hesitate before drawing a line between Israel and its partners to the pogroms and the horrors Jews experienced. I personally refuse to accept even the slightest hint of such allegations.

"There are parts of the report which I believe we just cannot accept if we do no want this burden - this mark of Cain - to be imprinted onto our forehead for generations to come."
'What, did the prime minster lie?'

Sharon decided that he "refuses to accept indirect responsibility because there was always an eminent threat of bloodshed by the (Christian) Phalanges; regardless of whether or not they cooperated with the IDF or not. This was a premise known and accepted by all of us.

"During Operation Peace for Galilee (the original name for the First Lebanon War) when we cooperated with them, everything worked properly. However, the committee reached the conclusion that that successful attempt couldn't be indicative of future mutual endeavors.
"Every single member of the political and military echelon testified, under oath, that positive experience made the possibility of such a massacre unconceivable. Hence, I reject the report's findings that the entire respectable group of people was wrong, that we were all wrong, all the way from the Prime Minister down, bar no one."
 Sharon refused to accept the conclusion that it was of no importance that at the time the decision was made to allow the Phalanges to enter the camp there was no way to predict they would undertake a massacre.

The reason was that his testimony was geared at justifying inaction. "The prime minister said that, does the prime minister lie? Why are you in a rush, why the hurry?"

Justice Minster Yosef Burg responded: "Nobody is in any hurry, why are you scolding us?"

"I'm not scolding, I'm enjoying myself, believe me," Sharon sarcastically retorted.

 Sharon seems to be conscious of the fact that the discussion was one for the books of history. "Because the transcribers keep changing, I want every part to have this on record: I did not come here to refute all of the committee's findings, rather (to argue) that this issue can place the mark of Cain on all of us for generations."

Sharon quotes the report's findings which claim that he authorized the Phalanges' entry into the camp in order to avoid IDF casualties.

"Mr. Prime Minister this is the most serious accusation that has been attributed to me. They do not claim I joined their ranks, nor that I killed with my own hands, rather that I acted out of a desire to protect soldiers.

"If they came and said that taking into account the lives of our soldiers is not a legitimate consideration any longer, then I am willing to stand before each and every one of you, before they cut my head off, and tell you to your face that in my opinion the lives of our soldiers are, and must be, a central consideration."

As the meeting continues it shifts to the report's personal recommendations: "Mr. Prime Minister, I say this with the utmost humility, I truly do not believe I need to resign for this. And that is my major crime. I welcome them to search for others and look around. If that is my major crime I tell you Mr. Prime Minister I honestly do not believe that I need to resign.

"Those who think my resignation will solve everything are wrong. Those who believe that me taking one for the team will calm the beast are wrong. The very same day it will want fresh blood."

The tension between Sharon and Begin is felt, and the defense minister tries to alleviate it.

"I haven't blamed the prime minister! I want to declare that I did not blame the prime minister, not even for the smallest of details. Let the prime minister testify. I blamed the prime minister of something? Not the prime minster and not anyone."

 Begin: "The claim was that the report insinuated that everyone who testified…"

 Sharon: "….I request the protocol state that I did not blame."

Begin: "But that was the intention."

Sharon: "Even today we are blamed for genocide; the formulation of the indirect responsibility on the State of Israel must be stricken from the report. Either that or it cannot be accepted by the government or it wall cast an indelible stain".

Mr. Prime Minister

Begin categorically rejected Sharon's argument for the government's rejection of the report.

He quoted the report's findings that there was no collusion between the Israeli political and military echelons and those of the Phalanges, or that there was never any Israeli intention of civilian deaths, as well as the IDF's repeated refusal to give the Phalanges artillery and tanks.

 "In light of these things, can one say that the report directly blames someone specifically?"

Sharon: "I did not say it blames, I said it creates room for interpretation."

Begin: "Forgive me, I am not the attorney general nor a lawyer. I did study law, this is true, but that is far from being enough. Tell me, Mr. Justice Minister, is the only argument that I make correct? Am I right in saying that the argument in this report that blames the people of Israel for the crime of genocide and the assistance of such an act, is baseless? Someone conjured an idea which is unrealistic according to the report. The report states things so clearly, one cannot be skeptical about it."

In the end, the report's results were accepted and Sharon was forced to resign.

Peace Now protest

Suddenly, the meeting is cut short by the Prime Minister's Military Secretary, Maj. Azriel Nevo, who reports about a Peace Now protest taking place right outside the Prime Minister's Office, calling for the government to accept the report's recommendations.

"An explosive charge was set off among the protesters. Apparently there are casualties, they are checking it now," Nevo announces. Begin instructs him to go downstairs and check what happened.

 "It was either a charge or a grenade," he adds. "Among the Peace Now protesters, who were standing  next to the Bank of Israel, there is one or two wounded, I'm still not sure."

The discussion continues, Sharon and Burg are arguing, all the while Burg's son, Avraham, is among the protesters outside, and was himself wounded from the grenade. However, at this point, Burg (senior) knows nothing of this. 

A few minutes later, Begin cuts the conversation short, emotionally calling: "There is a causality! A Jewish causality! Azriel (Nevo), how do we assume this happened? Did one camp attack the other?"

Nevo responded: "We assume so, but we have no proof. Somebody thinks a grenade was thrown. We are currently searching for shrapnel."

Justice Minister Burg: "There was a protest, on one side the Peace Now people. They sang the Tikva and began dispersing. A grenade was apparently thrown. One person was killed, two seriously wounded and three officers were lightly wounded. The police chief is on his way."

Begin: "Did the other side disperse as well?"

Burg: "They are checking whether there were any Arabs there, but it seems there were none."

Israel Passes the 'Regularisation' Law - its like having a law to compensate the burglar who enters your home

Pity the Poor, Distressed Zionist Land Thief

Imagine a law in Britain which is specifically designed to legalise squatting on other peoples’ land.  Not only would this be impossible, in fact the opposite occurred under the last government.  The actions of the homeless have increasingly been criminalised, even when they take over empty housing that rich people have decided to keep empty for reasons of making a profit.

The settlement of Amona

Settlers like Education Minister, Naftali Bennett were not homeless.  Bennett came as a rich businessman from Brooklyn, New York.  He and thousands of others are ideological squatters.  They believe they are fulfilling god’s commandments to steal the land of others.  Unlike in Britain they are backed by the force of the State.

Jewish settlers have squatted in their thousands on private Palestinian land [i.e. land which the State has not confiscated under one pretext or another] to which they have no entitlement. 

Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit attends a ceremony in Jerusalem, June 13, 2017. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

Instead of evicting them, as would happen if Palestinians in Israel did the same, the Knesset recently passed a ‘Regularisation Law’ which regularised the position of the land thieves.  It retrospectively legalised the theft of private Palestinian land in the West Bank.  Even the Attorney General, Avichai Mendelblit, a member of Likud, refused to support it describing it as unconstitutional but Netanyahu and his far-Right government proceeded regardless.  After all this is what settler colonialism has always done.

The Jewish settlers believe that god gave them the land, on the basis that their ancestors, completely mythical creatures, apparently lived there a few thousand years ago.  Imagine if the whole world were ordered on this basis!  In reality the settlers are doing no more than colonists have always done in places like Southern Africa.  Using the Bible to justify their expropriation of the land of the indigenous people.

See also the excellent article by Gideon Levy Oh Merciful God, Show Some [Mercy] to Victims

Tony Greenstein

The Israeli settlement of Almon in the occupied West Bank. Credit Ahmad Gharabli/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images        

Israeli ‘Regularisation Law’ is Designed to Protect those who steal Palestinian land

Israel to High Court: Law Seizing Palestinian Land Is Humane Response to 'Distress' of Thousands of Settlers

Private lawyer representing the state says expropriation of Palestinian lands in West Bank is constitutional under both Israeli and international law

Yotam Berger 22.08.2017 12:17 Updated: 12:18 PM

The unauthorized outpost of Mitzpeh Kramim. Israel says the expropriation law would help residents there with construction. Michal Fattal

The state on Monday asked the High Court of Justice to reject legal challenges to a controversial law that would allow for the retroactive expropriation of land owned by Palestinians in West Bank settlements. It called the law “a humane, proportional and reasonable response to the genuine distress of Israeli residents.”

In seeking to persuade the court to reject the legal challenges – filed by Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations – the state argued that the “practical alternative” to the law is the maintenance of the existing situation, which the state said is disruptive to the lives of “hundreds of families” in settlements, including families who built homes based on representations by government authorities that it was permissible.

The state added that the law is constitutional under Israeli law and also meets the requirements of international law.

Amona settlers building

Subject to specific provisions, the law allows Jewish settlers to remain in homes built on privately owned Palestinian land, even though it does not grant them ownership of the land. It also denies the Palestinian owners the right to claim the land or take possession of it “until there is a diplomatic resolution of the status of the territories.”

The state’s response was prepared by Harel Arnon, a private lawyer retained by the government after Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit refused to represent it, saying the legislation was not constitutional. Prior to its passage, he also tried to halt the legislative process.

Implementation of the law had been informally suspended following the legal challenge. However, at Mendelblit’s request, the court made the suspension official on Monday through a court order. This will remain in effect until the court makes its ruling.

Bennett shakes hands with Zeev Elkin

 The law also provides a mechanism for compensating Palestinians whose lands are seized: A landowner can receive an annual usage payment of 125 percent of the land’s value as determined by an assessment committee, or an alternate plot of land if this is possible – whichever the Palestinian landowner chooses.

The state said the law addressed “a reality in which the owners of the land are not benefiting from their rights, particularly a reality that time after time has been polarizing and tearing Israeli society apart, and severely harming public trust and institutions of government.”

The state called the current situation “a national problem.”

It also noted a number of cases in which it said residents would benefit from the law if it is found constitutional, including construction at the unauthorized outpost of Mitzpeh Kramim and a number of buildings in the settlement of Ofra.

Demolition of Amona

The state’s response included data from the Israeli Civil Administration in the West Bank, detailing the numbers of orders issued against illegal settlement construction on privately owned Palestinian land.

It said that between 2012 and 2016, orders were issued against 285 illegally built structures; between 2007 and 2011, orders were issued in connection with 251 structures; and between 2002 and 2006, more than 450 orders were issued. Between 1992 and 1996, however, the figure was only 20.

In conclusion, the state said that although there are many issues that prompted the legal challenges to the law requiring thorough consideration, ultimately the petitioners are making “much ado about nothing.”

The law, the state said, does not run counter to any precedent or legal principle, and instead is meant to deal with a unique and complex situation that at times has led to demolitions that benefited no one – a situation that places hundreds of families under “a cloud of uncertainty.”

In response, the organizations Yesh Din, Peace Now and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel – which are some of the petitioners in the case – responded: “The State of Israel, in its response today, is trying to present the land expropriation law as addressing a national problem, when in practice it involves continued government support for a criminal enterprise that has continued for decades.

“The government is minimizing the continuing harm to the rights of the Palestinian landowners, and at the same time is trying to present the Israeli citizens who are taking part in the looting of West Bank Palestinians as people who have been harmed and who require ‘compensation’ for their part in the looting,” they added. “We hope the court rejects the state’s arguments out of hand, strikes down this unconstitutional and immoral law, and sends a loud and clear message: No more.”

Yotam Berger

Haaretz Correspondent

State says outpost legalization law protects Palestinians

Responding to petition from left-wing NGOs, government insists preventing additional outpost evacuations is in Israel’s ‘national interest’

In its official response Thursday to a High Court of Justice petition against a new law to legalize wildcat West Bank outposts, the state argued that the legislation, if implemented, would benefit Palestinians.

Private attorney Harel Arnon crafted the response on behalf of the state after Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit refused to defend the legislation. In his 156-page response, Arnon wrote that the law will ensure just compensation for Palestinian landowners who would otherwise receive the death penalty from the Palestinian Authority for selling their land to Jews.

“The law even improves the situation of landowners, who will receive significant compensation for the use of their land — an option denied to them without the law,” Arnon wrote on behalf of the state.
The response also rejected claims that the legislation violates Israeli and international law. Arnon argued that it was in Israel’s “national interest” to prevent the evacuation of the some 4,000 homes that the law would legalize retroactively.

Defense Ministry dismantling Amona outpost in the central West Bank on February 6, 2017. (Courtesy Amona Council)

“The Regulation Law balances the obligation of the government towards thousands of citizens who have relied in good faith on government action and a minor infringement of property rights, with increased compensation to the landowners,” the state concluded.

Passed over six months ago, the Regulation Law allows the Israeli government to expropriate private Palestinian land where illegal outpost homes have been built ex post facto, provided that the outposts were “built in good faith” or had government support.

In return, the legislation states, the Palestinian landowners will be compensated financially or with other land.

The passage of the bill, originally meant to save the since-razed outpost of Amona, was roundly condemned by a slew of activists and political figures in Israel and abroad.

Its legality was immediately challenged in a High Court petition from left-wing NGOs Peace Now, Yesh Din and ACRI (Association for Civil Rights in Israel) on behalf of 27 Palestinian local councils and 13 Israeli civil society organizations.

Regardless of the petition, the law was supposed to have gone into effect last week. However, at the behest of Mandelblit, the High Court ruled Thursday to freeze its implementation for two months.

Jewish Home chair Naftali Bennett (R) shakes hands with Minister for Jerusalem Affiars Zeev Elkin after a vote on the so-called Regulation Bill, a controversial bill that seeks to legitimize illegal West Bank outposts, December 7, 2016. (Hadas Parush/Flash90)

Consequently, no additional land will be expropriated even if it fits the above conditions. At the same time, outposts found to have been built in good faith or with government backing will not be demolished until a final decision is made.

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked echoed state’s response to the High Court petition in a Monday statement praising the legislation. “The law offers a counter to the racism of the Palestinian Authority, which places the death penalty on those who sell land to Jews,” she said

But the left-wing NGOs behind the High Court challenge said the government’s response was an attempt to cover for a “criminal enterprise.”

“The Israeli government’s response seeks to present the expropriation law as a solution for a national problem, while the real problem is the state’s involvement in illegal settlement activity for the past five decades,” they said in a joint statement.

The court is now set to hear a response from the Knesset’s legal adviser in mid-September, followed by what is expected to be an unprecedented challenge to the law from Mandelblit himself in October.

In the months leading up to the February 6 Knesset vote on the Regulation Law, Mandelblit warned that the legislation bypassed standard land regulation procedures in the West Bank and that it legalized Israeli settlements built on private Palestinian land in breach of local and international law.

Mandelblit also cautioned that the legislation openly curtailed property rights of Palestinians in the West Bank in a way that contravenes the protections granted to occupied populations under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

When the Knesset passed the law anyway, Mandelblit officially notified the High Court that he would not defend the legislation if it was challenged. Arnon was subsequently chosen to represent the state in Mandeblit’s stead.

In May, Haaretz revealed that Arnon’s own home in the Elazar settlement is being built illegally on land that had been designated strictly for military purposes.

Revealed: Nearly 3,500 Settlement Homes Built on Private Palestinian Land

These illegal structures could be legalized under Israel's contentious 'land-grab' law, whose validity is now being determined by the High Court of Justice

Yotam Berger Aug 23, 2017 9:01 AM 

Settlers build in the illegal West Bank outpost of Amona, since evacuated by Israel. Emil Salman

There are 3,455 residential and public buildings built on private Palestinian lands in the West Bank, according to Civil Administration data. These illegal structures could be legalized under the expropriation law, whose validity is now being determined by the High Court of Justice in response to Palestinian petitions against the law.

Extensive details on the scope of illegal structures on private Palestinian land were revealed in an appendix to the state’s response to the petitions.

The law allows the state to expropriate Palestinian lands on which settlements or outposts were built “in good faith or at the state’s instruction,” and deny its owners the right to use those lands until there is a diplomatic resolution of the status of the territories. The measure provides a mechanism for compensating Palestinians whose lands are seized.

According to the Civil Administration, the 3,455 structures fall into three categories. The first includes 1,285 structures that are clearly private land. These are structures built during the past 20 years on land that was never defined as state land and all have had demolition orders issued against them. The second category comprises 1,048 structures that were built on private land that had earlier been erroneously designated state land. The third category contains 1,122 structures that were built more than 20 years ago, during a period when planning laws were barely enforced in the West Bank.

The structures on clearly private land are within the jurisdictions or adjacent to the jurisdictions of 74 settlements throughout the West Bank. Of these, 874 are in outposts – small, illegal satellites of larger settlements. One example would be the Tzur Shalem outpost near Karmei Tzur in the Etzion Bloc. Amona, which was evacuated in February, was another example. The other 411 are individual structures that were built on enclaves of private land within various legal settlements that were planned in accordance with Israeli law.

Israel just passed the land-grabbing law. What is it all about?

Of the 1,285 structures built on clearly private land, 543 are built on what the Civil Administration calls “regularized private land,” meaning lands whose owners are known and whose ownership is formally registered. The other homes are built on lands recognized as private after aerial photos proved that these lands had been cultivated over the years, but there is no definitive registry of who was cultivating them. Cultivating land establishes ownership in the West Bank in accordance with the Ottoman-era laws that still prevail there.

According to Dr. Ronit Levine-Schnur, an expert on property rights at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, “Regularized land is land for which there is clear land registration, whether performed under Jordanian rule or during the Mandate period. The land at Amona was regularized land. In these cases there is no doubt about the rights because the registration invalidates any competing right and there’s no such thing as a statue of limitations on registered land. Non-regularized land can be unregistered but known to be privately owned, or registered but in a registry that doesn’t have the same strong evidentiary power.”

The second category includes structures built on lands that had been erroneously declared state land. Because the original declarations of state land were based on obsolete surveying technology, when the technology improved, errors were discovered and lands were removed from the state land listings. As a result, 1,048 structures suddenly found themselves outside the “blue line” that demarcates state lands. Of these, 799 structures are in areas that had a valid master plan and were thus planned and built based on the earlier declarations. Of this subcategory, 303 buildings are in the ultra-Orthodox city of Modi’in Ilit.

The third category of structures were built on private lands, with the Civil Administration admitting that in most cases the owners of the lands are known. These structures, however, were built more than 20 years ago, during a period when there was almost no oversight regarding construction on private Palestinian land. Until 1998, the policy was to conduct virtually no enforcement actions in the settlements. Of these 1,122 structures, 480 are in Ofra, 193 are in Beit El, and 146 are in Elon Moreh. Dozens of other such homes were built in Eli, Shavei Shomron, Psagot, Ma’aleh Michmash and Hermesh.

All told, of the 3,455 structures built on private Palestinian land in the West Bank, 1,576 (around 45 percent) were built on regularized private land and the rest on private land whose owners are not confirmed. This number includes residential structures and public buildings, mobile and permanent alike, but doesn’t include other types of structures like storage rooms, fences, roads and infrastructures that were built on private land.

The Civil Administration data is similar to the numbers that appeared in a recent Peace Now report, which estimated that the expropriation law could legalize up to 4,000 housing units in the settlements and outposts. Outposts that could be legalized included Avigail, Ahuzat Shalhevet, Beit El East, Bat Ayin West, Jebal Artis, Hill 725, Givat Assaf and more. The report noted that numerous homes could also be legalized in Oranit, Asfar, Beit El, Givat Ze’ev, Gitit, Har Gilo and others.

The Civil Administration appendix also details how many demolition orders were issued against illegal structures in the settlements. Between 2012 and 2016 there were 285 orders issued; between 2007 and 2011 – 251; from 2002 to 2006 – 451; between 1997 and 2001 – 278 orders and between 1992 and 1996 only 20 demolition orders were issued.

Yotam Berger

Haaretz Correspondent

Israeli ambassador flings Nazi label at Israeli leaders, after latest authoritarian step

And for those who doubt any of this, don’t forget to repeat the mantra ‘Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East’

It comes to a pretty pass when Israel's own ambassador compares the latest piece of racist legislation to that of the Nazis!

Tony Greenstein

Israel forces left-wing NGO’s that receive foreign funding to wear special stickers in the Knesset

Philip Weiss on December 29, 2015

Ambassador Caspi posts image of Hermann Goering to warn Israel about what it is becoming

In Peace Now’s daily news digest, this quote tops the list today:

Quote of the day:

From Peace Now Blog

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are under attack and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

–A quote by Nazi war criminal Hermann Goering, posted by Israeli Ambassador to Switzerland, Yigal Caspi, on Facebook, following the passing of the NGO bill.**

Yigal Caspi, image on twitter

Caspi has removed the quotation. He clearly intended the comment as a warning to Israeli leaders. He is now under investigation for the statement. The NGO bill is a new law that forces left leaning human-rights groups that receive substantial funds from overseas to wear labels when they come to the Israeli Knesset. Peace Now continues, “Another hot topic today was the comparisons to Nazis.”

Hebrew University lecturer Dr. Ofer Cassif wrote on Facebook that Justice Minister Shaked is ‘Neo-Nazi scum’ and told Army Radio afterward, “I think it’s fair to compare Israel to Germany in the 1930s, and not to the years of genocide.” Cassif pointed to the Im Tirtzu video and Shaked’s NGO law. The article in Ynet noted that the Facebook posts come in the wake of the passing of the NGO bill, but it doesn’t mention that the bill requires the (mostly left-wing) NGO representatives to wear a special badge when they visit the Knesset committees to indicate that they receive more than 50% of their contributions from foreign states. 

Cassif shared on Facebook the post by his colleague Professor Amiram Goldblum, who sharply criticized Shaked for not revealing that she received ‘blood money’ contributions from a Jewish Belgian donor who is now in jail for selling arms to rebels in Sierra Leone. Private donations are not required to be revealed by the bill. Cassif was not alone in his comparison of Israel’s right-wing government to the Nazis. 

Israeli Ambassador to Switzerland, Yigal Caspi, posted a quote by a Nazi war criminal that described how fascist governments get their people to follow them, by “denouncing the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” Caspi added: “We’re on the right path…” 

Now, the ambassador faces punishment by the Foreign Ministry. Oddly, the article by Yedioth’s Itamar Eichner did not mention the context of the posting of the quote: the government’s approval of the NGO bill that labels left-wing Israeli human rights organizations.

Let’s be clear: anyone on the American left who used Nazi analogies for Israel was shunned for doing so, but Israeli leaders throw the Nazi stuff around readily. (For good reason; we all know that victims model their abuser when they gain any power.)

The Nazi charges of course go to the treatment of Palestinians. The NGOs all care about Palestinians. In its news list, Peace Now also mentions the latest failure in the investigation of the Duma murderers, Jewish zealots who torched a sleeping Palestinian family in occupied territory last summer. (Peace Now is virtually alone among liberal Zionist groups in recognizing the significance of the Duma murders as evidence of lawlessness, racism, and the fear among Palestinians.)

Many friends are saying that Israel is cracking up. “The end,” “Imploding,” “It’s over,” are two comments I’ve heard in the last day or two. Even J Street seems rattled (“deeply concerned and disappointed”). New Yorker editor David Remnick just got back from Jerusalem and said on the radio this morning that the situation is “tragic” and that Israel bears the greater share of responsibility for the failure of peace talks.

This crisis has long been evident to Palestinians. The knife attacks are of course a symptom of their loss of any faith in the many promises of freedom they have been given. Now the questions are: How long can Israel play out this crisis, as yet another burp in the managed-conflict model of persecution. And having long said that the status quo is unsustainable, will American leaders at last take a stand against apartheid and colonization? Who will speak up here, and show real leadership? Bernie? (And, to be parochial: how many secular American Jews will openly take on their parents and say what they believe in their hearts, that Jewish nationalism, the idea of a “Jewish democracy” established on lands belonging largely to others, is a snare and a delusion?)