- Moderator
- #401
Hmmmm Ofra is an interesting case study. First, most of the information I can find about it all sources itself in a single B'tselem report and I'm having some difficulty finding other sources. I can't find any confirmation that "58% of the land is registered to Palestinians", other than that one report, and frankly, so many of these reports confuse privately owned land with "Palestinian land", I'm just not willing to take their say-so.
What makes Ofra especially interesting in that the Jewish residents claim they purchased the land fair and square from Palestinians, even paying far more than the land was worth, but failed to register their purchase for fear of Palestinian retribution on the sellers for selling to Jews. If true, what a nice scam -- "sell" the land, but if it fails to get registered -- its still yours.
On the other hand, the Palestinians appear to be claiming that they didn't sell the land at all, and that the Israelis took it, but they failed to register a complaint against it and allowed the Israelis to have the land for many years, giving the Israelis the belief that they now had legal title to it.
Its a mess.
But I think that is the lesson here. These are not black-and-white "you stole my land" issues. They are complex. A Palestinian village has some land which is designated as Area B in Oslo. But they think that more of the land around their village (Area C) "belongs" to their village, even though the land was never registered to private individuals. Or the land was actually purchased by their family in the past, but they failed to register it in order to avoid paying taxes. So its technically not theirs. Or they actually never purchased it, but assumed it to be part of the village and thus "their" land.
And then a Palestinian decides to sell his land, actually privately owned and registered, to an Israeli, but is actually fearful of his life if it is discovered. So he asks that the land not be registered, to which the Israeli agrees. Or, possibly, he is not really fearful of his life, but realizes that if the Israeli doesn't register the land purchase -- the land is still technically his. Or, possibly, Israelis just start using and building on land, claiming they purchased it when they did not.
Its a mess.
And I think we would do well to remember that there are all sorts of actors here: Jewish Israeli migrants and returnees; Arab Israelis; Palestinian citizens; governments; courts and they all have different goals and different end games.
My point being, trying to reduce it down to "Israel is bad", "Israel is apartheid" or "Israel is discriminatory" is a fool's game. Its complicated.
Yes, I agree, it is complicated, though I tend to think IF they bought it fair and square, as they claim, there would be no ongoing court case, it would be settled.
There are other sources mention though, that seem pretty disturbing, though I don't know if they apply to this specific case. One is a reference to the "Sasson Report". Sasson Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Sasson Report is an official Israeli government report published on 8 March 2005 that concluded that Israeli state bodies had been discreetly diverting millions of shekels to build West Bank settlements and outposts that were illegal under Israeli law. The report was commissioned by the Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and was headed by the former head of the State Prosecution Criminal Department Talia Sasson. Talia Sasson would later run for the Israeli elections as part of the left wing party Meretz.
In addition, according to B'tselem, the HCJ has ordered the homes on private land demolished. It would seem that in the courts the issue is resolved but the state is unwilling to carry out the orders. The state appears to have acknowledged Ofra was built on private Palestinian land.
Israelās High Court orders state to carry out demolition orders issued for nine structures in the settlement of Ofra, despite state objection. Court: Denying the petition would have sanctioned severe harm to Palestinian rights and rule of law, which is unacceptable
In a dramatic decision, Israelās High Court of Justice (former President A. Grunis, President M. Naor, and Justice I. Amit) ruled Sunday that the state must carry out demolition orders issued for nine illegal structures built on privately-owned Palestinian land in the West Bank settlement of Ofra. The Court accepted the petition filed by Palestinian residents of nearby villages and Israeli human rights organizations Yesh Din and BāTselem to enforce the law regarding illegal construction in the area. In light of the stateās claim that the nine structures essentially share the status of many other houses in Ofra, the ruling has far-reaching implications for the issue of illegal construction on privately-owned Palestinian land...
..Unlike in other cases concerning illegal Israeli construction on Palestinian land in the West Bank, the state claimed in this petition that due to āspecial circumstancesā, the usual priorities for enforcement of planning and building laws did not apply in this case. The āspecial circumstancesā, the state explained, were that most structures in Ofra had been unlawfully erected on privately-owned Palestinian land, i.e. their status was almost identical to that of the nine structures under examination. The stateās problematic argument was that as almost the entire settlement of Ofra had been built on privately-owned Palestinian land, there was no justification to demolish those particular nine structures ā although they were new and the petition was filed before they were completed. Therefore, the state argued, the fate of the nine structures would be determined along with the rest of the settlement, through negotiations on a permanent-status agreement with the Palestinians. State representatives referred to Ofra throughout the court sessions as āthe largest illegal outpost in the West Bankā.
In a dramatic decision, Israelās High Court of Justice (former President A. Grunis, President M. Naor, and Justice I. Amit) ruled Sunday that the state must carry out demolition orders issued for nine illegal structures built on privately-owned Palestinian land in the West Bank settlement of Ofra. The Court accepted the petition filed by Palestinian residents of nearby villages and Israeli human rights organizations Yesh Din and BāTselem to enforce the law regarding illegal construction in the area. In light of the stateās claim that the nine structures essentially share the status of many other houses in Ofra, the ruling has far-reaching implications for the issue of illegal construction on privately-owned Palestinian land...
..Unlike in other cases concerning illegal Israeli construction on Palestinian land in the West Bank, the state claimed in this petition that due to āspecial circumstancesā, the usual priorities for enforcement of planning and building laws did not apply in this case. The āspecial circumstancesā, the state explained, were that most structures in Ofra had been unlawfully erected on privately-owned Palestinian land, i.e. their status was almost identical to that of the nine structures under examination. The stateās problematic argument was that as almost the entire settlement of Ofra had been built on privately-owned Palestinian land, there was no justification to demolish those particular nine structures ā although they were new and the petition was filed before they were completed. Therefore, the state argued, the fate of the nine structures would be determined along with the rest of the settlement, through negotiations on a permanent-status agreement with the Palestinians. State representatives referred to Ofra throughout the court sessions as āthe largest illegal outpost in the West Bankā.
For each person claiming Israel is discrimminating, you have someone pointing to dishonest Palestinians? Which is truth and what is assumed?