Wednesday, June 17, 2015

To truly understand the status of this territory in Greater Israel we have to first differentiate between the personal and the national.


To truly understand the status of this territory we have to first differentiate between the personal and the national. The recent furor surrounding the government’s decision to declare nearly 1,000 acres at Gvaot in Gush Etzion “State Land” is a classic example of the ignorance of history and law that governs most discussions of Israeli actions beyond the internationally hallowed “Green Line.” Media headlines around the world screamed about “annexation” and “land grab,” the Palestinian Authority declared it a “crime” and foreign ministries around the world have demanded the reversal of the decision. However, few articles, press releases or communiqu├ęs mention the crux of the matter; the legal and historical status of the land in question. Ottoman land ownership law – It is time to learn the facts about Judea and Samaria
For many, if not most, around the world, every inch of land beyond the 1949 armistice lines is thought to be automatically Palestinian; a display of unfamiliarity with history and international law.

To truly understand the status of this territory in Greater Israel we have to first differentiate between the personal and the national.
Of course there is land privately owned by Arab-Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, what many call the “West Bank” in seeming deference to the Jordanian occupation, which invented the term as juxtaposition to its eastern bank. These areas, like privately owned territory anywhere in the world, cannot be touched unless there is very pressing reason for a government or sovereign power to do so. These areas, according to Ottoman and British records, constitute no more than a few percent of the total area, meaning the vast majority is not privately owned.
However, to contend that these territories are “Arab-Palestinian” on a national level is problematic. To claim an area belongs to a particular nation requires the territory to have belonged to that people, where they held some sort of sovereignty that was broadly recognized.
All of these criteria have been met historically by the Jewish people, and none by the Arab-Palestinians.
In fact, the Jewish people were provided with national rights in these territories not just by dint of history and past sovereignty, but also by residual legal rights contained in the San Remo Treaty of 1920 confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and the League of Nations Mandate, which were never canceled and are preserved by the UN Charter, under Article 80 – the famous “Palestine Clause,” that was drafted, in part, to guarantee continuity with respect to Jewish rights from the League of Nations.
For the past over 2,200 years, since the destruction of Jewish sovereignty and expulsion of most of its indigenous people, it remained an occupied and colonized outpost in the territory of many global and regional empires.
The Ottomans were the most recent to officially apportion the territory, in what they referred to as Ottoman Syria, which today incorporates modern-day Israel, Syria, Jordan and stretching into Iraq. Before The Ottoman Land Code of 1858, land had largely been owned or passed on by word of mouth, custom or tradition. Under the Ottomans of the 19th century, land was apportioned into three main categories: Mulk, Miri and Mawat.
Mulk was the only territory that was privately owned in the common sense of the term, and as stated before, was only a minimal part of the whole territory, much of it owned by Jews, who were given the right to own land under reforms.
Miri was land owned by the sovereign, and individuals could purchase a deed to cultivate this land and pay a tithe to the government. Ownership could be transferred only with the approval of the state. Miri rights could be transferred to heirs, and the land could be sub-let to tenants. In other words, a similar arrangement to a tenant in an apartment or house as having rights in the property, but not to the property.
Finally, Mawat was state or unclaimed land, not owned by private individuals nor largely cultivated. These areas made up almost two-thirds of all territory.
The area recently declared “State Land” by the Israeli government, a process which has been under an intensive ongoing investigation for many years, is Mawat land. In other words, it has no private status and is not privately owned.
Many claims to the territory suddenly arose during the course of the investigation, but all were proven to be unfounded on the basis of land laws.
Interestingly, it should be clearly understood by those who deem Judea and Samaria “occupied territory” that according to international law the occupying power must use the pre-existing land laws as a basis for claims, exactly as Israel has done in this case, even though Israel’s official position is that it does not see itself de jure as an occupying power in the legal sense of the term. It is only a liberator of its ancestral land.
None of these facts are even alluded to in the many reports surrounding the government’s actions in settlement and housing. This is deeply unjust and a semblance of the relevant background, history and facts would provide the necessary context for what has been converted into an international incident where none should exist.

Many nations and people are questioning Israel’s control of its own liberated territory. No one is mentioning that the Arab countries had persecuted and ejected about a million Jewish families and their children (who lived there for over 2,200 years) from their countries, confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and Real estate property. Over 650,00 Jewish people and their children of these expelled Jewish people and their children were resettled in Greater Israel. The Land the Arab countries confiscated from the Jewish people 120,440 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles, which is over 5-6 times the size of Israel, and its value today is the trillions of dollars.

1 comment:

  1. As long as Israel's new president Reuven Rivlin does not sell Israel and its citizens for scoring political purposes.

    The previous President of Israeli President Shimon Peres only cared about himself and committed treasonous acts against the Jewish State of Israel.

    Be this as it may, those surrendering Jewish land, or intending to surrender Jewish land, to Israel’s enemies are prima facie guilty of committing acts defined as treason by Israel’s Penal Law, specifically:

    acts which “impair the sovereignty” of the State of Israel—section 97(a);

    acts which “impair the integrity” of the State of Israel—section 97(b);

    acts under section 99 which give assistance to an “enemy” in war against Israel, which the Law specifically states includes a terrorist organization;

    acts under section 100 which evince an intention or resolve to commit one of the acts prohibited by sections 97 and 99.

    The idea was simple: promise peace in exchange for an invitation into the Jewish state to govern the Arab population living there. Then, kill the Jews.

    Is it possible for one country A to cause another country B to assist its own enemies and commit suicide? Yes, so long as certain conditions obtain.

    By "committing suicide" I mean that since the people who compose the organs of state feel duty-bound to carry out the orders of their superiors, what is needed, mechanically, is for country A to corrupt the political leadership and the media of country B. If this is attained, then country A, through the corrupted political leaders and media in country B, can cause the organs of state in country B to assist the enemies of country B.

    A scenario where this would be maximally easy is one where country B is very small and has lots of enemies, whereas country A is very large – at the limit, a superpower (e.g. the United States). A superpower will certainly have the wherewithal to corrupt the leadership and the media of a small country, in which case it can make that leadership surrender Gaza and the West Bank to terrorists who never stop firing at its civilians, and whose ideology is the total extermination of those civilians.

    The idea was simple: promise peace in exchange for an invitation into the Jewish state to govern the Arab population living there. Then, kill the Jews.

    In bringing the PLO into the Jewish state, Israeli leaders revived
    the PLO.

    Anybody critical of Oslo was loudly equated by the Israeli government and media with the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists as an ‘enemy of peace.’

    Since May 2003, the Israeli government cannot claim to be unaware that the PLO is a continuation of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution

    No Jew has the right to yield the rights of the Jewish People in Israel -
    David Ben Gurion

    (David Ben-Gurion was the first Prime Minister of Israel and widely hailed as the State’s main founder).

    “No Jew is entitled to give up the right of establishing [i.e. settling] the Jewish Nation in all of the Land of Israel. No Jewish body has such power. Not even all the Jews alive today [i.e. the entire Jewish People] have the power to cede any part of the country or homeland whatsoever. This is a right vouchsafed or reserved for the Jewish Nation throughout all generations. This right cannot be lost or expropriated under any condition or circumstance. Even if at some particular time, there are those who declare that they are relinquishing this right, they have no power nor competence to deprive coming generations of this right. The Jewish nation is neither bound nor governed by such a waiver or renunciation. Our right to the whole of this country is valid, in force and endures forever. And until the Final Redemption has come, we will not budge from this historic right.”

    BEN-GURION’S DECLARATION ON THE EXCLUSIVE AND INALIENABLE JEWISH RIGHT TO THE WHOLE OF
    THE LAND OF ISRAEL: at the Basle Session of the 20th Zionist Congress at Zurich (1937)

    “No country in the world exists today by virtue of its ‘right’.

    ReplyDelete