Palestine Today

[Coyote]

Post
#13566

This

2007
Palestine Today
A UN agency said that Israel has denied 94 percent of Palestinian requests for building permits in West Bank areas under its full control.

Leads to another page on this thread....?

hmm...weird...wrong link. Not sure how I got that one!

Here: UN: Israel has denied 94% of requests for West Bank building permits

Seriously? That's a three paragraph article from more than ten years ago. Did you do any looking into what the report actually says? Or what is happening now?

Or did you just google something that you think must be true because it seems to support your pre-conceived notions?

Seriously yes.

I quoted that one from 2007 (and the date was NOTED above it) and then one from 2019 that said essentially the same thing. IE not a lot had changed. But I guess you ignored that in your haste to claim it wrong.

If you dispute what it says - then provide evidence that it is wrong.

The news article from 2019 makes the same claim that you do, but again provides nothing to back it up. It does seem like you are looking for articles which match your pre-conceived notions, rather than actually exploring the topic.

Do a google search for "Palestinian building permits" or "Israeli building permits" - a relatively neutral term. What comes up - after you weed out the obvious crap?

 

[Shusha]

So let's clear up a few things...

Coyote claims that: Israel denies 94% of building permits to Arabs because of their ethnicity. She quotes news articles paraphrasing reports written by NGOs and then suggests she has proven her claim.

I don't think so.

What percentage of building permits are issued to Arab Israelis compared to Jewish Israelis? (The answer, btw, is no one knows because its freaking illegal to ask such questions on building permits. If measured by generally Jewish neighborhoods and generally Arab neighborhoods, its about the same, with Arabs receiving slightly higher percentages of acceptance. They do apply MUCH less frequently though and illegal building by Arabs is rampant.)

What percentage of building permits are issued to Arab Palestinians (not citizens) compared to Israelis (citizens)?

What percentage of building permits issued by the PA are permitted by Israel in Area C?

What security concerns need to be addressed for any given location?

Is there a Community Development Plan in place for that area or village?

Is the applicant building on land which is privately owned by them?

Is the applicant building too many buildings on the same plot of land?

Are the buildings safe?

Was the permit applied for prior to beginning construction?



I think if we were to look into this seriously, there are a whole host of reasons why these permits may not be accepted and "because Israel discriminates against Arabs" isn't one of them.

 

[Shusha]

This

Leads to another page on this thread....?

hmm...weird...wrong link. Not sure how I got that one!

Here: UN: Israel has denied 94% of requests for West Bank building permits

Seriously? That's a three paragraph article from more than ten years ago. Did you do any looking into what the report actually says? Or what is happening now?

Or did you just google something that you think must be true because it seems to support your pre-conceived notions?

Seriously yes.

I quoted that one from 2007 (and the date was NOTED above it) and then one from 2019 that said essentially the same thing. IE not a lot had changed. But I guess you ignored that in your haste to claim it wrong.

If you dispute what it says - then provide evidence that it is wrong.

The news article from 2019 makes the same claim that you do, but again provides nothing to back it up. It does seem like you are looking for articles which match your pre-conceived notions, rather than actually exploring the topic.

Do a google search for "Palestinian building permits" or "Israeli building permits" - a relatively neutral term. What comes up - after you weed out the obvious crap?

Oh, no worries, I have read scads of reports. I dive pretty deeply into subjects I'm interested in.

 

[Coyote]

You yourself said you one of your criticisms of Israel is that it should issue more permits to Arabs. Have you changed your mind about that and now label it "demonizing Jews and Israel"?

Yes. But you neglected to remember and post WHY. I said that Israel should just annex all the parts of Area C she intends to keep. All the Palestinians willing to would become Israeli citizens and would get ALL THE GOODIES.

That is a lie.
Israeli Arabs still get nothing, and can have everything taken away.
They can not even use the same schools, hospitals, or roads even.

Sigh...

Not true.

Israeli Arabs are citizens of Israel, and no they can not have everything taken away. They are citizens. Yes they can use the same school and hospitals though there are inequities in funding etc. and there is discrimination - that discrimination is not legal.

 

[Coyote]

hmm...weird...wrong link. Not sure how I got that one!

Here: UN: Israel has denied 94% of requests for West Bank building permits

Seriously? That's a three paragraph article from more than ten years ago. Did you do any looking into what the report actually says? Or what is happening now?

Or did you just google something that you think must be true because it seems to support your pre-conceived notions?

Seriously yes.

I quoted that one from 2007 (and the date was NOTED above it) and then one from 2019 that said essentially the same thing. IE not a lot had changed. But I guess you ignored that in your haste to claim it wrong.

If you dispute what it says - then provide evidence that it is wrong.

The news article from 2019 makes the same claim that you do, but again provides nothing to back it up. It does seem like you are looking for articles which match your pre-conceived notions, rather than actually exploring the topic.

Do a google search for "Palestinian building permits" or "Israeli building permits" - a relatively neutral term. What comes up - after you weed out the obvious crap?

Oh, no worries, I have read scads of reports. I dive pretty deeply into subjects I'm interested in.

Then link to some of them. Provide sources. You ask me for them.

 

[Coyote]

So let's clear up a few things...

Coyote claims that: Israel denies 94% of building permits to Arabs because of their ethnicity. She quotes news articles paraphrasing reports written by NGOs and then suggests she has proven her claim.

I don't think so.

What percentage of building permits are issued to Arab Israelis compared to Jewish Israelis? (The answer, btw, is no one knows because its freaking illegal to ask such questions on building permits. If measured by generally Jewish neighborhoods and generally Arab neighborhoods, its about the same, with Arabs receiving slightly higher percentages of acceptance. They do apply MUCH less frequently though and illegal building by Arabs is rampant.)

What percentage of building permits are issued to Arab Palestinians (not citizens) compared to Israelis (citizens)?

What percentage of building permits issued by the PA are permitted by Israel in Area C?

What security concerns need to be addressed for any given location?

Is there a Community Development Plan in place for that area or village?

Is the applicant building on land which is privately owned by them?

Is the applicant building too many buildings on the same plot of land?

Are the buildings safe?

Was the permit applied for prior to beginning construction?



I think if we were to look into this seriously, there are a whole host of reasons why these permits may not be accepted and "because Israel discriminates against Arabs" isn't one of them.

I agree there are a whole host of reasons but that doesn't rule out discrimination as one of those reasons.

 

[Shusha]

Another source for same: PM said to float plan for Palestinian building permits in West Bank’s Area C

No, its the same Times of Israel story.

 

[Coyote]

I'm heading off to bed now - it's after 11pm. Too late for a work night.

 

[Coyote]

Another source for same: PM said to float plan for Palestinian building permits in West Bank’s Area C

No, its the same Times of Israel story.

I meant the same as the link above it in that post - two saying the same thing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ toomuchtime_, P F Tinmore, et al,

Not a criticism, but just a clarification.

The UNRWA CERI (Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions) IS NOT LAW. It is an Administrative Instruction on the eligibility for "services."

{LINK: Who we are.}
UNRWA services are available to all those living in its areas of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. When the Agency began operations in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, some 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services.

So, you're saying that 41% of Palestinians around the world are refugees who were forced to flee their homeland since 1948, are more than 70 years old.

Under the UNRWA mandate, Palestinian who do not live in Israel are considered refugees until the end of time or until Israel has been destroyed, whichever comes first. This peculiar definition of "refugee" exists nowhere else in the world. In other places, a refugee has to be an actual refugee.

(COMMENT)

The UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) is a non-governmental organization (NGO); with a UN General Assembly mandate extending (currently) until 30 June 2020 (NOT → "until the end of time or until Israel has been destroyed"). The UNRWA definition is outlined solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for UNRWA assistance and services. It does not define the term "refugee" or establish any legal definition for a "refugee."

The UNRWA was established by A/RES/302 (IV) • 8 December 1949; which Directs the UNRWA to consult with the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine in the best interests of their respective tasks, with particular reference to paragraph 11 of A/RES/194 (III) of 11 December 1948...

"Refugees are people who have fled war, violence, conflict or persecution and have crossed an international border to find safety in another country.

They often have had to flee with little more than the clothes on their back, leaving behind homes, possessions, jobs and loved ones.

Refugees are defined and protected in international law. The 1951 Refugee Convention is a key legal document and defines a refugee as:"

“someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.”
​

SOURCE: UNHCR Web Site: What is a refugee.

While there is an international convention (Law) that defines a refugee, there is NO convention that distinguishes a separate definition for "Palestinian Refugees."

The distinction is that "Palestinian Refugees" cannot draw services from both the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) and the UNRWA at the same time. If the UNRWA should ever close its operations, the UNHCR would pick-up that obligation. But the UNHCR would not be obligated to carry-on the implementation of CERI.


Most Respectfully,
R

The UNRWA definition is outlined solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for UNRWA assistance and services. It does not define the term "refugee" or establish any legal definition for a "refugee."

That's what I have been saying.

 

[Shusha]

Seriously? That's a three paragraph article from more than ten years ago. Did you do any looking into what the report actually says? Or what is happening now?

Or did you just google something that you think must be true because it seems to support your pre-conceived notions?

Seriously yes.

I quoted that one from 2007 (and the date was NOTED above it) and then one from 2019 that said essentially the same thing. IE not a lot had changed. But I guess you ignored that in your haste to claim it wrong.

If you dispute what it says - then provide evidence that it is wrong.

The news article from 2019 makes the same claim that you do, but again provides nothing to back it up. It does seem like you are looking for articles which match your pre-conceived notions, rather than actually exploring the topic.

Do a google search for "Palestinian building permits" or "Israeli building permits" - a relatively neutral term. What comes up - after you weed out the obvious crap?

Oh, no worries, I have read scads of reports. I dive pretty deeply into subjects I'm interested in.

Then link to some of them. Provide sources. You ask me for them.

Well, I haven't made a claim. You have.

What sources were you looking for?

 

[Shusha]

So let's clear up a few things...

Coyote claims that: Israel denies 94% of building permits to Arabs because of their ethnicity. She quotes news articles paraphrasing reports written by NGOs and then suggests she has proven her claim.

I don't think so.

What percentage of building permits are issued to Arab Israelis compared to Jewish Israelis? (The answer, btw, is no one knows because its freaking illegal to ask such questions on building permits. If measured by generally Jewish neighborhoods and generally Arab neighborhoods, its about the same, with Arabs receiving slightly higher percentages of acceptance. They do apply MUCH less frequently though and illegal building by Arabs is rampant.)

What percentage of building permits are issued to Arab Palestinians (not citizens) compared to Israelis (citizens)?

What percentage of building permits issued by the PA are permitted by Israel in Area C?

What security concerns need to be addressed for any given location?

Is there a Community Development Plan in place for that area or village?

Is the applicant building on land which is privately owned by them?

Is the applicant building too many buildings on the same plot of land?

Are the buildings safe?

Was the permit applied for prior to beginning construction?



I think if we were to look into this seriously, there are a whole host of reasons why these permits may not be accepted and "because Israel discriminates against Arabs" isn't one of them.

I agree there are a whole host of reasons but that doesn't rule out discrimination as one of those reasons.

Your GO TO claim was that Israel actively discriminates against Arabs because they are Arabs.

So if a non-citizen of Israel builds a house without a permit, gets caught, and only then decides to apply for a permit, on land which he says is his, but has no records proving such, which is legally actually State land, in a town with no development plan in place, on a plot of land where only one house is permitted, but three already stand, fails to get proper building materials and builds something unsafe, and also happens to belong to a terrorist group and stores weapons in his house.....WHOAH! Must be discrimination against Arabs.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ toomuchtime_, P F Tinmore, et al,

I've seen this before.

All true and yet, the grandchildren of someone who left Israel in 1948 are regarded as a refugees in documents and opinions that have nothing to do with receiving services.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a conjuring of the theory that IF the arrangement of words and phrases to create the impression of validity is repeated often enough, THEN it will miraculously become true.

The term "refugee," in the case of the Arab Palestinians, is an approximation towards the truth, but not the truth. In mathematics we call this "bad notation" or improper "syntax." But when you know better, and still do it, you are encouraging disinformation. In the realm of honesty, it should be avoided in general.

Similarly, as occupation is defined in the Geneva Conventions, there is no Israeli occupation and there is no basis in law, fact or logic for calling any part of Judea or Samaria Palestinian territory yet it is hard to find any reference to them that does not call them occupied Palestinian territories.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is close. Actually, by international law, the status of "occupation" is defined in Article 42, of the 1907 Hague Regulation.

View attachment 294056​

Yes, there is some room to argue about this...

◈ Since the Arab Palestinians never established sovereignty over any territory except Area "A" was any of the West Bank and Gaza Strip "Occupied Territory in the aftermath of the Six-Day War?

◈ Since the Jordanian Government cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem in July 1988, while it was under Israeli control, was that territory ever occupied by a hostile Army?

◈ Since Israel cannot effectively control the Gaza Strip, and cannot maintain authority, it never had, and cannot exercise authority (effective control), is it legally occupied territory?​

Talking about refugees who are not refugees, an occupation that is not an occupation and Palestinian territories that are not in any sense Palestinian territory encourages unrealistic expectations among the so called Palestinians, really just stateless Arabs living in the unincorporated remnants of the former Mandate for Palestine, and prolongs the conflict the people who use these misleading terms claim to be concerned about.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is based on how you interpret the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954).

For the purpose of this Convention, the try in which he finds himself, which require term "stateless person" means a person who is in particular that he conform to its laws and not considered as a national by any State under regulations as well as to measures taken for the operation of its law.
​

Now there are a couple of notable exceptions to the convention and the two that stand out the most relative to Arab Palestinians are:

◈ The definition doesn't apply to those persons under UNHCR support. But does apply to those receiving UNRWA Services.

◈ It does not apply to those that have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, which would leave out favorable consideration (but not limited) to:

✦ Arab Palestinians who were members of organizations that were financing of terrorists, whether direct or indirect, through groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in illicit activities such as drug trafficking or gun running;

✦ Those involved or proving support to the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Those involved in the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party.

✦ The unlawful use of an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.​

That would leave out a large segment of Arab Palestinians, especially those thousand and thousands of demonstrators that were involved in the fire kits and balloons from the Gaza Strip.

DID I miss anything?


Most Respectfully,
R

As with the Geneva Conventions, it is only an occupation if the territory of a hostile state is taken, but since no one but Pakistan and the UK considered Judea and Samaria to be Jordanian territory, Israel's capture of the land cannot be considered an occupation. Furthermore, since there is no rational basis in fact or logic for calling the territory Palestinian territory, the term, occupied Palestinian territory, has no substantial meaning other than that the person who states it wants it to be Palestinians territory, in other words, it is purely a propaganda term. People who use these terms are the enemies of peace and progress in the ME.

Totally wrong.
Palestine was established by the Allies according to their promise during WWI.
The Treaty of Sevres, the Treaty of San Remo, etc., established Palestine as a defined and legal political entity.

Israel on the other hand, is just a whim of the UN, as a gesture to a bunch of European refugee immigrants.
There is no legal, historical, or religious basis for Israel.

The same documents also recognized a Jewish homeland.

Israel exists, and has for coming on 75 years as a nation. That is older than a number of other nations today. Get over it.

These documents do NOT recognize a Jewish home land as having sovereignty.
They recognize a Jewish home land within an free Arab, Muslim, Palestine.
If you do not believe me, then read the 1922 Churchill Whitepaper that explains it in great detail.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
{...
The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.

During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organization for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew Press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious, and social organizations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact "national" characteristics. When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.

For the fulfilment of this policy it is necessary that the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals. It is essential to ensure that the immigrants should not be a burden upon the people of Palestine as a whole, and that they should not deprive any section of the present population of their employment. Hitherto the immigration has fulfilled these conditions. The number of immigrants since the British occupation has been about 25,000.
...}

The Mandate states that Jews would become citizens of Palestine. Of course Palestinians would also be citizens of Palestine.

A separate state for the Jews was never mentioned.

 

[Coyote]

So let's clear up a few things...

Coyote claims that: Israel denies 94% of building permits to Arabs because of their ethnicity. She quotes news articles paraphrasing reports written by NGOs and then suggests she has proven her claim.

I don't think so.

What percentage of building permits are issued to Arab Israelis compared to Jewish Israelis? (The answer, btw, is no one knows because its freaking illegal to ask such questions on building permits. If measured by generally Jewish neighborhoods and generally Arab neighborhoods, its about the same, with Arabs receiving slightly higher percentages of acceptance. They do apply MUCH less frequently though and illegal building by Arabs is rampant.)

What percentage of building permits are issued to Arab Palestinians (not citizens) compared to Israelis (citizens)?

What percentage of building permits issued by the PA are permitted by Israel in Area C?

What security concerns need to be addressed for any given location?

Is there a Community Development Plan in place for that area or village?

Is the applicant building on land which is privately owned by them?

Is the applicant building too many buildings on the same plot of land?

Are the buildings safe?

Was the permit applied for prior to beginning construction?



I think if we were to look into this seriously, there are a whole host of reasons why these permits may not be accepted and "because Israel discriminates against Arabs" isn't one of them.

I agree there are a whole host of reasons but that doesn't rule out discrimination as one of those reasons.

Your GO TO claim was that Israel actively discriminates against Arabs because they are Arabs.

So if a non-citizen of Israel builds a house without a permit, gets caught, and only then decides to apply for a permit, on land which he says is his, but has no records proving such, which is legally actually State land, in a town with no development plan in place, on a plot of land where only one house is permitted, but three already stand, fails to get proper building materials and builds something unsafe, and also happens to belong to a terrorist group and stores weapons in his house.....WHOAH! Must be discrimination against Arabs.

So your GO TO claim is it can't possibly be discrimination against Arabs. It's everything ELSE but not that right?

This article is pretty good imo - and it makes many of the same points you too including the complexity of proving land ownership. However, it also points out the funding inequities that lead help Jewish builders and hurt Arab builders, and it points out that there IS an issue of discrimination.

Only 7% of Jerusalem building permits go to Palestinian neighborhoods
A lawsuit filed by the Beit Safafa Community Council gives some insight into the way the system is stacked against the Arab residents. The suit deals with two building plans for the Givat Hamatos area in southern Jerusalem; one plan is for land owned by the ILA and Jewish owners, while the other plan is for land owned by Arabs.

Both plans were approved by the city at the same time three years ago, but only the plan for Jewish construction was deposited for public comment and is moving forward, while the Arab plan, which would serve to expand Beit Safafa, is stuck. “There is a serious and well-founded concern that the fact this plan was not [advanced] does not stem from relevant or professional reasons, but is linked to political and other irrelevant considerations,” wrote attorney Mohannad Gbara, in the suit he filed on behalf of the community council.

“If anyone thinks the Palestinians’ frustration and rage are the result of incitement alone, the numbers and facts on the ground show otherwise,” said Wharton, the city councilor. “There’s no doubt that there’s incitement, but it’s planted deep in the fertile ground of discrimination. The policy of the city administration and its head is to block not just any movement of Palestinians but also their ability to build and live normal lives. Two cities have been created here, one for Israelis, in which there is investment, and one for Palestinians who are strangulated.”

 

[Shusha]

Instead of looking for reasons to demonize Israel, can we please have a real conversation about the real issues?

Discussing specifically, the small, isolated, Arab villages in Area C...

They are populated by people who are not citizens of Israel, but citizens of Palestine. Palestine is, by treaty, responsible for their welfare. But they live in an area controlled by Israel.

They tend to be economically and socially based in an agricultural society, mostly farmers and herders. They are being overtaken by urban growth.

They have a very different culture of land use and ownership than Israelis.

There are security concerns.

There are accessibility concerns.

There are community development plans which should be written.

There is infrastructure to be built.



If we are trying to solve problems, these are the topics we should be discussing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ toomuchtime_, P F Tinmore, et al,

I've seen this before.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a conjuring of the theory that IF the arrangement of words and phrases to create the impression of validity is repeated often enough, THEN it will miraculously become true.

The term "refugee," in the case of the Arab Palestinians, is an approximation towards the truth, but not the truth. In mathematics we call this "bad notation" or improper "syntax." But when you know better, and still do it, you are encouraging disinformation. In the realm of honesty, it should be avoided in general.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is close. Actually, by international law, the status of "occupation" is defined in Article 42, of the 1907 Hague Regulation.

View attachment 294056​

Yes, there is some room to argue about this...

◈ Since the Arab Palestinians never established sovereignty over any territory except Area "A" was any of the West Bank and Gaza Strip "Occupied Territory in the aftermath of the Six-Day War?

◈ Since the Jordanian Government cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem in July 1988, while it was under Israeli control, was that territory ever occupied by a hostile Army?

◈ Since Israel cannot effectively control the Gaza Strip, and cannot maintain authority, it never had, and cannot exercise authority (effective control), is it legally occupied territory?​

(COMMENT)

Well, that is based on how you interpret the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954).

For the purpose of this Convention, the try in which he finds himself, which require term "stateless person" means a person who is in particular that he conform to its laws and not considered as a national by any State under regulations as well as to measures taken for the operation of its law.
​

Now there are a couple of notable exceptions to the convention and the two that stand out the most relative to Arab Palestinians are:

◈ The definition doesn't apply to those persons under UNHCR support. But does apply to those receiving UNRWA Services.

◈ It does not apply to those that have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, which would leave out favorable consideration (but not limited) to:

✦ Arab Palestinians who were members of organizations that were financing of terrorists, whether direct or indirect, through groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in illicit activities such as drug trafficking or gun running;

✦ Those involved or proving support to the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Those involved in the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party.

✦ The unlawful use of an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.​

That would leave out a large segment of Arab Palestinians, especially those thousand and thousands of demonstrators that were involved in the fire kits and balloons from the Gaza Strip.

DID I miss anything?


Most Respectfully,
R

As with the Geneva Conventions, it is only an occupation if the territory of a hostile state is taken, but since no one but Pakistan and the UK considered Judea and Samaria to be Jordanian territory, Israel's capture of the land cannot be considered an occupation. Furthermore, since there is no rational basis in fact or logic for calling the territory Palestinian territory, the term, occupied Palestinian territory, has no substantial meaning other than that the person who states it wants it to be Palestinians territory, in other words, it is purely a propaganda term. People who use these terms are the enemies of peace and progress in the ME.

Totally wrong.
Palestine was established by the Allies according to their promise during WWI.
The Treaty of Sevres, the Treaty of San Remo, etc., established Palestine as a defined and legal political entity.

Israel on the other hand, is just a whim of the UN, as a gesture to a bunch of European refugee immigrants.
There is no legal, historical, or religious basis for Israel.

The same documents also recognized a Jewish homeland.

Israel exists, and has for coming on 75 years as a nation. That is older than a number of other nations today. Get over it.

These documents do NOT recognize a Jewish home land as having sovereignty.
They recognize a Jewish home land within an free Arab, Muslim, Palestine.
If you do not believe me, then read the 1922 Churchill Whitepaper that explains it in great detail.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
{...
The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.

During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organization for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew Press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious, and social organizations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact "national" characteristics. When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.

For the fulfilment of this policy it is necessary that the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals. It is essential to ensure that the immigrants should not be a burden upon the people of Palestine as a whole, and that they should not deprive any section of the present population of their employment. Hitherto the immigration has fulfilled these conditions. The number of immigrants since the British occupation has been about 25,000.
...}

When it comes to those documents and period of history, I usually defer to people like RoccoR who have a more extensive knowledge than I.

But regardless...it's really irrelevant today. It does not matter at all except to those who are trying to make arguments justifying the rights to and control of one side or the other to larger or smaller areas of territory.

It's not going to alter the fact of the existence of a sovereign nation that is established has itself as a nation for almost 75 years now.

Of course it is never mentioned that the Palestinians have never ceded any land to Israel.

 

[Shusha]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ toomuchtime_, P F Tinmore, et al,

I've seen this before.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a conjuring of the theory that IF the arrangement of words and phrases to create the impression of validity is repeated often enough, THEN it will miraculously become true.

The term "refugee," in the case of the Arab Palestinians, is an approximation towards the truth, but not the truth. In mathematics we call this "bad notation" or improper "syntax." But when you know better, and still do it, you are encouraging disinformation. In the realm of honesty, it should be avoided in general.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is close. Actually, by international law, the status of "occupation" is defined in Article 42, of the 1907 Hague Regulation.

View attachment 294056​

Yes, there is some room to argue about this...

◈ Since the Arab Palestinians never established sovereignty over any territory except Area "A" was any of the West Bank and Gaza Strip "Occupied Territory in the aftermath of the Six-Day War?

◈ Since the Jordanian Government cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem in July 1988, while it was under Israeli control, was that territory ever occupied by a hostile Army?

◈ Since Israel cannot effectively control the Gaza Strip, and cannot maintain authority, it never had, and cannot exercise authority (effective control), is it legally occupied territory?​

(COMMENT)

Well, that is based on how you interpret the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954).

For the purpose of this Convention, the try in which he finds himself, which require term "stateless person" means a person who is in particular that he conform to its laws and not considered as a national by any State under regulations as well as to measures taken for the operation of its law.
​

Now there are a couple of notable exceptions to the convention and the two that stand out the most relative to Arab Palestinians are:

◈ The definition doesn't apply to those persons under UNHCR support. But does apply to those receiving UNRWA Services.

◈ It does not apply to those that have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, which would leave out favorable consideration (but not limited) to:

✦ Arab Palestinians who were members of organizations that were financing of terrorists, whether direct or indirect, through groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in illicit activities such as drug trafficking or gun running;

✦ Those involved or proving support to the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Those involved in the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party.

✦ The unlawful use of an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.​

That would leave out a large segment of Arab Palestinians, especially those thousand and thousands of demonstrators that were involved in the fire kits and balloons from the Gaza Strip.

DID I miss anything?


Most Respectfully,
R

As with the Geneva Conventions, it is only an occupation if the territory of a hostile state is taken, but since no one but Pakistan and the UK considered Judea and Samaria to be Jordanian territory, Israel's capture of the land cannot be considered an occupation. Furthermore, since there is no rational basis in fact or logic for calling the territory Palestinian territory, the term, occupied Palestinian territory, has no substantial meaning other than that the person who states it wants it to be Palestinians territory, in other words, it is purely a propaganda term. People who use these terms are the enemies of peace and progress in the ME.

Totally wrong.
Palestine was established by the Allies according to their promise during WWI.
The Treaty of Sevres, the Treaty of San Remo, etc., established Palestine as a defined and legal political entity.

Israel on the other hand, is just a whim of the UN, as a gesture to a bunch of European refugee immigrants.
There is no legal, historical, or religious basis for Israel.

The same documents also recognized a Jewish homeland.

Israel exists, and has for coming on 75 years as a nation. That is older than a number of other nations today. Get over it.

These documents do NOT recognize a Jewish home land as having sovereignty.
They recognize a Jewish home land within an free Arab, Muslim, Palestine.
If you do not believe me, then read the 1922 Churchill Whitepaper that explains it in great detail.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
{...
The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.

During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organization for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew Press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious, and social organizations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact "national" characteristics. When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.

For the fulfilment of this policy it is necessary that the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals. It is essential to ensure that the immigrants should not be a burden upon the people of Palestine as a whole, and that they should not deprive any section of the present population of their employment. Hitherto the immigration has fulfilled these conditions. The number of immigrants since the British occupation has been about 25,000.
...}

The Mandate states that Jews would become citizens of Palestine. Of course Palestinians would also be citizens of Palestine.

A separate state for the Jews was never mentioned.

The Mandate states that Jews would develop self-governing institutions. Neither Arabs nor Palestinians are mentioned.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So let's clear up a few things...

Coyote claims that: Israel denies 94% of building permits to Arabs because of their ethnicity. She quotes news articles paraphrasing reports written by NGOs and then suggests she has proven her claim.

I don't think so.

What percentage of building permits are issued to Arab Israelis compared to Jewish Israelis? (The answer, btw, is no one knows because its freaking illegal to ask such questions on building permits. If measured by generally Jewish neighborhoods and generally Arab neighborhoods, its about the same, with Arabs receiving slightly higher percentages of acceptance. They do apply MUCH less frequently though and illegal building by Arabs is rampant.)

What percentage of building permits are issued to Arab Palestinians (not citizens) compared to Israelis (citizens)?

What percentage of building permits issued by the PA are permitted by Israel in Area C?

What security concerns need to be addressed for any given location?

Is there a Community Development Plan in place for that area or village?

Is the applicant building on land which is privately owned by them?

Is the applicant building too many buildings on the same plot of land?

Are the buildings safe?

Was the permit applied for prior to beginning construction?



I think if we were to look into this seriously, there are a whole host of reasons why these permits may not be accepted and "because Israel discriminates against Arabs" isn't one of them.

I agree there are a whole host of reasons but that doesn't rule out discrimination as one of those reasons.

Your GO TO claim was that Israel actively discriminates against Arabs because they are Arabs.

So if a non-citizen of Israel builds a house without a permit, gets caught, and only then decides to apply for a permit, on land which he says is his, but has no records proving such, which is legally actually State land, in a town with no development plan in place, on a plot of land where only one house is permitted, but three already stand, fails to get proper building materials and builds something unsafe, and also happens to belong to a terrorist group and stores weapons in his house.....WHOAH! Must be discrimination against Arabs.

which is legally actually State land,

It is interesting that Israel claims "state land" in the Wast Bank when the West Bank is not in their state.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinian women take part in anti-occupation protests during the First Intifada in 1987.

 

[Shusha]

So your GO TO claim is it can't possibly be discrimination against Arabs. It's everything ELSE but not that right?

Nah. My GO TO is to call out demonization of Israel when I see it.