Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support.

Click here to help us keep going

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Has the IDF found a way to climb down the Susya tree?

Up against extraordinarily harsh diplomatic pressure from its closest allies, Israel seems to have found a way to save face without creating too much of a fuss — at least temporarily.

Members of the ‘Clown Army’ confront Israeli security forces during a solidarity protest in the Palestinian village of Susya, June 22, 2012. (Photo by Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Members of the ‘Clown Army’ confront Israeli security forces during a solidarity protest in the Palestinian village of Susya, June 22, 2012. (Photo by Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

With more or less the entire Western world warning Israel not to demolish the Palestinian village of Susya and forcefully displace its residents, it is no surprise that the Israeli army might be seeking a way to climb down the tree it is stuck on.

So how does one announce that it might not demolish that village which it has been claiming for years has no right to exist? As a first step, you might look for an internal document you discarded years ago, one that argues the residents of Susya do actually own the land from which you want to expel them, and then leak it to the press.

That is exactly what it appears the army is doing. Somebody in the Israeli Defense Ministry leaked such a document to Haaretz over the weekend. The document reportedly says that Susya’s residents own the land they live on, a fact that would make forcefully transferring them elsewhere more difficult.

The U.S. State Department, most European Union foreign ministers, the United Nations and hundreds of activists have all joined a very public campaign to save the impoverished village in recent weeks. It is hard to remember such harsh language from Israel’s closest allies about such a specific policy in recent years.

Last month every single EU head of mission went to the village on a solidarity visit. Last week, a State Department spokesperson warned Israel that following through with its plans would be a “provocation” and that it would “set a damaging standard for displacement and land confiscation, particularly given settlement-related activity in the area.”

This past weekend, over 500 Palestinian, Israeli and international activists descended upon the South Hebron Hills hamlet to protest plans to demolish it.

Hundreds of Palestinian, Israeli and international activists march into the Palestinian village of Susya, demanding that Israel not demolish it, Suysa, South Hebron Hills, July 24, 2015. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Hundreds of Palestinian, Israeli and international activists march into the Palestinian village of Susya, demanding that Israel not demolish it, Suysa, South Hebron Hills, July 24, 2015. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Speaking at the rally, Palestinian MP Mustafa Barghoutti highlighted the effect that international pressure can have, as evidenced by the case of Susya.

“Combining popular resistance on the ground, international solidarity and boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israeli policies,” Barghoutti said,“is very productive and very effective at this stage.”

The Israeli army document that shows Susya’s residents own their land is not a reversal of policy, but whoever leaked it is trying to guide policy makers down the tree in which they are sitting.

The Israeli government and army will not simply admit they were wrong this whole time. There will be no recognition that Palestinians have a right to settle and live on their own land, be it “state” land or privately owned land. (What Israel calls “state” land belongs to the nascent State of Palestine, not to Israel.)

The state will not grant building permits or provide electricity and water either Susya or the dozens of other Palestinian villages in the South Hebron Hills and Jordan Valley facing demolition and forced displacement. But now that it has a technical reason to not demolish Susya, Israel can at least justify putting off doing so until the High Court of Justice rules on the matter.

Two months ago a High Court justice, who happens to be a West Bank settler himself, refused to issue an injunction against the demolition while Susya’s case is pending in Israel’s top court.

Susya’s residents were told the demolitions would take place after the Muslim holy month of Ramadan,  and military bulldozers have been parked outside of the village for some weeks now.

A second dispossession?

The Israeli army first demolished the village of Khirbet Susya, deep in the desolate south Hebron Hills, three decades ago, on the grounds that it was located on an archeological site. Susya’s residents, many of whom lived in caves on the site for generations, packed up and moved a few hundred meters away, onto their adjacent agricultural lands.

The IDF, which as the occupying power controls nearly every aspect of Palestinians’ lives in the West Bank, never recognized the validity of the move. To this day, the village has no connections to electricity or running water, and its access roads are not paved.

A view of the tents that comprise most of Susya, July 24, 2015. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org) Israeli authorities reject 90 percent of Palestinian planning requests, which means that almost all new Palestinian homes in the area are built without permits, putting them at risk of demolition.

A view of the tents that comprise most of Susya, July 24, 2015. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org) Israeli authorities reject 90 percent of Palestinian planning requests, which means that almost all new Palestinian homes in the area are built without permits, putting them at risk of demolition.

On the other hand, when it comes to unauthorized Jewish settlements, all of which squat on Palestinian land, Israeli authorities supply electricity, water, security and more. The terms “double standard” or “discrimination” don’t even begin to describe the dual realities in that part the West Bank.

The Israeli army has issued repeated demolition orders against the village on the grounds that none of its tents and tin shacks were erected with the proper permits. The army’s Civil Administration, however, rejects 90 percent of Palestinian planning requests.

The army has made no attempt to find a legal solution that would allow Susya’s residents to stay on their land. It intends to transfer them to the nearby city of Yatta, which is in Area A – under Palestinian Authority rule. Susya is in Area C.

Twenty years ago, on an explicitly temporary and transitional basis, the Oslo Accords divided the West Bank into three “Areas”: A, B and C. Area C, which comprises over 60 percent of the West Bank, is under full Israeli control. A significant portion of the current Israeli government has explicitly stated its desire to annex this area to Israel, in contravention of international law.

In such a scenario, Israel would want to annex as much land as possible with as few Palestinians as possible – hence, efforts and plans to transfer and dispossess Bedouin and Palestinian residents of the south Hebron Hills and Jordan Valley.

Newsletter banner

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Gustav

      Interesting though to read this…

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susya

      “The excavated synagogue in Susya dates from the 4th to the 7th century CE and was in continuous use until the 9th century CE.[12][13] It is one of four of an architecturally unique group in the Southern Judean Hills”

      What happened to the Jews who used to inhabit this area? I guess the activists will never talk about this or it’s ramifications.

      Just sayin’

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Of course we DO KNOW what happened to the Jews of Hebron (which is near Susua) in 1929. The Jews were attacked by Palestinian Arab mobs and a significant number were murdered. The rest fled Hebron.

        “At about 8.30 am Saturday morning, the first attacks began to be launched against houses where Jews resided,[16] after a crowd of Arabs armed with staves, axes and knives appeared in the streets. The first location to be attacked was a large Jewish house on the main road. Two young boys were immediately killed, whereupon the mob entered the house and beat or stabbed the other occupants to death.”

        In 1929, there was no “Occupation”. There wan’t even an Israel. Yet such history is consistently ignored by Pro Arab activists.

        According to Arab apologists, everything bad that ever happens starts with Jews and Israel. The Arabs never do and have never done ANYTHING wrong!

        Reply to Comment
        • Mike Panzone

          that could be true about arabs never admitting to anything they have done wrong.

          …but where is your list of things that israelis and jews have done wrong??

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            @Mike

            I am not talking about Arabs never admitting to anything they have done wrong.

            I am talking about NON Arab activists never admitting to anything the Arabs have done wrong.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav:”I am talking about NON Arab activists never admitting to anything the Arabs have done wrong.”

            What on earth are you on about, Gustav?

            Of course the murders that occurred in Hebron in 1929 were a crime perpetuated against the Jewish inhabitants of that village by the Arab inhabitants of that village.

            It was a pogrom and – like all pogroms – there can be no justification for that act of wilful murder.

            Only an idiot – or a straw man – would claim otherwise.

            So it is axiomatic that wrong was done to those Jews, and that the survivors – or the family of those who were murdered – not only have a legitimate grievance they also have a legal right to seek restitution for the wrong that was done.

            But here’s the thing: any such restitution has to come from the Palestinian authorities, it can not be handed out by ISRAEL.

            ISRAEL doesn’t have the authority to do that, precisely because the currency that is being used – occupied territory – Does Not Belong To Israel.

            Because (and do pay attention here, because this is a pretty fundamental concept) if it doesn’t belong to Israel then it isn’t Israel’s to give to anyone.

            For any reason.

            At any time.

            A simple concept, I would have thought.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Thank you YR. A half sane response from you for a change. But still only half…

            You are pretending that the 1929 massacre of Hebron’s Jews was but an isolated example.

            …the thing is… it wasn’t just an isolated example. Yet we never hear non Arab pro Palestinian apologists condemning and raving on about a myriad of similar or even worse atrocities perpetrated by Palestinian Arabs against Israeli Jews.

            Want an example? Show me an article in this publication which talks about Palestinian Arab atrocities against us. The silence is simply deafening!

            …yet at the same time, they never stop reminding us and everyone else, how evil WE are!

            Reply to Comment
          • Mike Panzone

            …that could be true. maybe they do this because today’s palestinians are the victims in this 100 year conflict and people are less likely to blame victims. at some point victimhood has to be set aside if any progress is to be made.

            but in all fairness, do jewish and israeli apologists ever admit israel and jews ever do anything wrong? wouldn’t progress come much quicker if israel did its part and admitted that, in fact, an injustice was done to the indigenous population? when has israel ever even hinted at this?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            MIKE:”…that could be true.”

            It IS true! Westerners who are pro Palestinian activists pretend that Palestinian Arabs never do anything wrong. They are in effect apologists to the point that they cannot be taken seriously by any thinking person.

            MIKE:”maybe they do this because today’s palestinians are the victims in this 100 year conflict and people are less likely to blame victims. at some point victimhood has to be set aside if any progress is to be made.”

            Sure they are victims. We are victims too. Wherever there is a war, there are victims on both sides. But make no mistake about it, this war was started by the Palestinian Arabs. And this war is still going on because the Paestinian Arabs refuse to sign a peace deal and in fact are not even willing to negotiate without setting pre-conditions.

            I say the above without even bringing Hamas into it who still insist that the Arab’s original objectives apply; Israel’s destruction!

            MIKE:”but in all fairness, do jewish and israeli apologists ever admit israel and jews ever do anything wrong?”

            Actually we do. In fact, some of us even over do it for instance this magazine and publications such as Haaretz. As for people like me? Yes, I have said it time and time again, we are not perfection personified. NO ONE IS! Is YOUR country perfect, Mike?

            But overall, we are more right because we never wanted war. We still don’t. The Palestinian Arabs are the ones who opted for war at every turn. And they still DO because they refuse to sign a peace deal.

            MIKE:”wouldn’t progress come much quicker if israel did its part and admitted that, in fact, an injustice was done to the indigenous population? when has israel ever even hinted at this?”

            You better be more specific about what injustice you are talking about. There were too many injustices done by both sides. Injustices by one side begot injustices from the other side. Isn’t that what happens in all wars? War itself is an injustice. And we know which side has been insisting on wars because they are against the existence of the Jewish nation state.

            Reply to Comment
          • Mike Panzone

            the initial injustice after the fall of the turkish government in 1918 is what i am referring to. the injustice that Great Britain committed by denying the indigenous jewish and arab population at that time the right to democratically determine for themselves what kind of government would replace the turks, instead, allowing foreign europeans to build a country on top of them despite their disapproval.

            has the israeli government ever admitted to this? that the resident jews, muslims, and christians at that time, the only ones who had the right to form a country, were denied their rights?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            MIKE:”the initial injustice after the fall of the turkish government in 1918 is what i am referring to. the injustice that Great Britain committed by denying the indigenous jewish and arab population at that time the right to democratically determine for themselves what kind of government would replace the turks, instead, allowing foreign europeans to build a country on top of them despite their disapproval.”

            Really? Why was that an injustice? Do you consider the partition of India an injustice too? After all, the Muslims of India represented only 12% of the total population of India yet they got their separate Muslim country.

            And more recently, the Muslims of Bosnia were able to opt to separate from the majority Serb population and form their own nation state. Did you go out in the streets and demonstrate against that, Mike? After all, NATO made that possible by bombing Serbia!

            So why shouldn’t have the Jews of Palestine been given the right to form our own country? After all, by 1948, we were 33% of the population and it is OUR ancestral homeland. Are you saying that the Arab peoples were not allocated enough lands? Most of the Middle East and ALL of North Africa was given to the Arab peoples. You mean to say that giving 0.5% of the land (which Israel is) as compared to 99.5% of the land which Arabs got, is unjust? And please don’t give me the BS story that in 1948, the Palestinian Arabs considered themselves to be separate people from Syria or Jordan. Because I will dig up quotes from various Arab leaders of that era which clearly said that the Palestinian Arabs were part of Southern Syria or Jordan.

            MIKE:”has the israeli government ever admitted to this? that the resident jews, muslims, and christians at that time, the only ones who had the right to form a country, were denied their rights?”

            Why should we? The only just solution was partition. That gave us our own state in which we were a majority so that we could no longer be persecuted as we were, for generations, both in Europe and in Arab countries.

            Oh and mike, I find it sad that at least you, cannot acknowledge that the Arabs have been committing many wrongs against us. You cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that even though you sought an admission from me that we are not perfect which I admitted by saying that neither we, nor anyone else is perfect. Including your country by the way…

            But you still are excusing the Arabs. Why are you people so one eyed?!! Believe me it is counter productive. This attitude just gets everyone to dig their heels in and refuse to compromise. Oh well, you people just can’t help yourselves but it diminishes your credibility!

            Reply to Comment
          • Mike Panzone

            you say jews were about half the population by 1948…yeah they were, simply because the occupying brits allowed european jews to imigrate there, despite the fact that they were foreigners and despite the fact that the true owners of the land, the indigenous jews, christians, and muslims did not want these strangers. the brits had no right to impose this on the residents there.

            and who is excusing the arabs? not me. the palestinians must accept the fact that there are five million jews now living in israel and it would be an impossibility to have them relocate. they are there to stay. the palestinians must admit this, just as the israelis must admit that their building a jewish state was wrong, should never have happened, and was what initiated this conflict.

            edbut on the other side, Israelis must admit that it was wrong

            Reply to Comment
          • Electric Avenue

            Mike said “just as the israelis must admit that their building a jewish state was wrong, should never have happened, and was what initiated this conflict”

            You are absurd. What a nonsensical thing to say.
            Regardless, it is not true and never going to happen. Ever.
            If you care for the Palistinians, you need to stop being a slave of the past

            Reply to Comment
          • Mike Panzone

            it is you who is a slave to the past…a past that was over 2000 years ago.

            and it is this slavery to the idea of a “jewish state” that initiated this conflict in the early 20th century when other countries were moving toward constitutional secular democracies. israel and all the islamic republics of the middle east went the other way, unfortunately

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            @ELectric Avenue

            Of course Mike is looking backwards. Look at his first post to me. He just cannot get over the fact that we are here. He considers that to be our original sin. The fact that we are back in our ancestral homeland where we can defend ourselves from persecution. He cannot forgive us for that nearly 170 years after we started returning and 500 years from now people like him still won’t forgive us for it. But they expect us to forgive and forget for all the wrongs which both Arabs and Europeans have inflicted on us for nearly 2000 years.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            MIKE;”you say jews were about half the population by 1948…yeah they were,”

            Nah I said we were about a third of the population. As opposed to the Muslims of India who were only 12% of the population yet they were allowed to form their own sovereign country.

            MIKE:”simply because the occupying brits”

            And before the occupying Brits, it was the occupying ottomans.

            And before them, it was the occupying Arabs.

            And before them, it was the occupying Byzantines.

            And before them it was the occupying Romans.

            And before all of them it was us.

            And all those sovereign overlords, including us and the Arab overlords took the liberty to alter the character of the country to whatever suited them. So what? Now it is our turn again, get over it.

            MIKE:”allowed european jews to imigrate there,”

            First of all we are descendants of the ancient Judeans, not so much Europeans. Till very recently, the antisemites amongst you never let us forget that. But now we are Europeans? Can’t you people make up your minds?

            MIKE:”despite the fact that they were foreigners”

            Yea, I suppose you call American Indians and Australian Aborigines foreigners in their lands too?

            MIKE:”and despite the fact that the true owners of the land, the indigenous jews, christians, and muslims did not want these strangers. the brits had no right to impose this on the residents there.”

            The indigineous Jews WERE truly indigineous and they had no objections to the return of their brothers, us.

            As for the rest, they too were descendants of past invaders.

            Yet we were willing to share our ancestral homeland with them. They were the ones who objected to our return. Hence the 100 year war is on THEIR conscience.

            MIKE:”and who is excusing the arabs? not me.”

            By repeating their simplistic lies, you are excusing them.

            MIKE:”the palestinians must accept the fact that there are five million jews now living in israel and it would be an impossibility to have them relocate. they are there to stay. the palestinians must admit this,”

            But they won’t if people like you keep on repeating their zero sum game. Hey, they want it all and people like you give them the excuse to want it all. Moreover, they think they can wait it out because people like you make them believe that in addition to the support of 400 million Arabs and a billion more Muslims, the tide of Western public opinion too will turn in their favor.

            But both you and they are wrong.

            MIKE:”just as the israelis must admit that their building a jewish state was wrong, should never have happened, and was what initiated this conflict.”

            Why must we? And why exactly was it wrong? Because now it is harder for the Arabs and some of you guys to persecute us? Because now there is ONE Jewish state where we are safe from persecution and where we can defend ourselves?

            Reply to Comment
          • Mike Panzone

            1) “it is OUR ancestral homeland”
            so what? my ancestors left england 175 years ago, but great britain doesn’t have to take me back. for whatever reason, jews left these lands two thousand years ago and became european…the residents of palestine didn’t have to take back any jewish people just because european powers at the time decided it should be so.

            2)”You mean to say that giving 0.5% of the land (which Israel is) as compared to 99.5% of the land which Arabs got, is unjust?”
            yes it was unjust. it makes no difference who owned the lands of the rest of the middle east. the half million or so people who lived in palestine in the early 20th century had a right to stay right where they were because it was their home and they had been there for hundreds of years. why should they vacate it to make a home for european jews who had never set food in the middle east?

            3)”why shouldn’t have the Jews of Palestine been given the right to form our own country?”
            they could form their own country. if you could find an area where there were no other people, then establish your jewish country there. it was wrong to plant a jewish state on top of a bunch of muslims and christians who did not want to live in a jewish state.

            4) the muslims of india and bosnia were already there. those land partitions came as a result of civil war. essentially a trade was made. in israel’s case, there was no trade made. foreign settlers came from europe, forced themselves in, and took control of the land away from the rightful owners.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            MIKE:1) “it is OUR ancestral homeland”
            so what? my ancestors left england 175 years ago, but great britain doesn’t have to take me back. for whatever reason.

            No they don’t because you left off your own free will, you did not flee because you were fearing for your life. Moreover, both when you left and now, Britain is the sovereign power so they can do whatever they want. Your analogy fails on all fronts.

            MIKE:”jews left these lands two thousand years ago and became european…the residents of palestine didn’t have to take back any jewish people just because european powers at the time decided it should be so.”

            And since 170 years ago we returned to our roots as middle Easterners. Moreover, it wasn’t up to the residents of Palestine, most of whom were descendants of invaders, to decide who is or isn’t allowed to return, because they were not the sovereign power.

            Hey, man, the history of mankind is full of waves of immigrations and conquests. But out of all of those events, you want to crucify only the Jewish people for taking back a portion of our ancestral home land?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV:”2)You mean to say that giving 0.5% of the land (which Israel is) as compared to 99.5% of the land which Arabs got, is unjust?”

            MIKE:”yes it was unjust. it makes no difference who owned the lands of the rest of the middle east. the half million or so people who lived in palestine in the early 20th century had a right to stay right where they were because it was their home and they had been there for hundreds of years. why should they vacate it to make a home for european jews who had never set food in the middle east?”

            Yep, they had the right to stay. And they would have stayed if they would not have made war on us. There was and still is room in here for two states for two peoples. You seem to forget which side rejected UNGA Resolution 181. Hint: It wasn’t us!

            GUSTAV:”3)why shouldn’t have the Jews of Palestine been given the right to form our own country?”

            MIKE:”they could form their own country. if you could find an area where there were no other people, then establish your jewish country there. it was wrong to plant a jewish state on top of a bunch of muslims and christians who did not want to live in a jewish state.”

            But according to you it is ok to force the Jewish people to live in Muslim or Christian states if we had enough of being persecuted in those states?

            MIKE:”4) the muslims of india and bosnia were already there. those land partitions came as a result of civil war. essentially a trade was made.”

            Hey, there was a civil war in Palestine too.

            And hey, migration has been a constant in the history of mankind.

            And hey, most times somebody objected to someone or another group’s immigrations yet it still happened.

            So hey, please don’t single us out. We had at least as much right to RETURN to our ORIGINS as other groups who migrated and CONQUERED NEW LANDS, including the Arabs.

            in israel’s case, there was no trade made. foreign settlers came from europe, forced themselves in, and took control of the land away from the rightful owners.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            MIKE:”in israel’s case, there was no trade made. foreign settlers came from europe, forced themselves in, and took control of the land away from the rightful owners.”

            Not really, we did not force ourselves in, the sovereign powers allowed most of us in.

            The local Arabs, some of whom were immigrants from neighboring lands too, had the option to share the land with us.

            They chose war instead and the rest is history.

            Reply to Comment
          • Mike Panzone

            i acknowlged already and believe from the bottom of my heart that today’s israelis are here to stay. Palestinians must accept that.

            but your arguments, Gustav, just circle round and round and round and round. a 2000 year old claim is dead. sorry. it was pitiful how jews have been treated for the past 3000 years. but the european “sovereign powers” were wrong to allow european jews who had been absent since ANCIENT TIMES to form a jewish homeland on top of middle eastern occupants who had no choice, no vote in the matter.

            again, i’m not the one living in the past. you guys are. and your refusal to adopt a secular constitution which would allow christians, muslims, and atheists the complete and total exact same rights as jews is proof of that. “jewish states” and “islamic republics” are anachronistic in the 21st century.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            MIKE:”i acknowlged already and believe from the bottom of my heart that today’s israelis are here to stay. Palestinians must accept that.”

            Good. I don’t think the Palestinian Arabs have acknowledged it though (some of them may have, but not the majority).

            MIKE:”but your arguments, Gustav, just circle round and round and round and round. a 2000 year old claim is dead. sorry.

            So you acknowledge that we are here to stay but you bring up our return here which we started 170 years ago as the “original sin” which I disagree with, but I am the one who is circling around and around? Ok, if you say so…

            MIKE:”it was pitiful how jews have been treated for the past 3000 years. but the european “sovereign powers” were wrong to allow european jews who had been absent since ANCIENT TIMES to form a jewish homeland on top of middle eastern occupants who had no choice, no vote in the matter.”

            …and now you are repeating yourself again. So I will too…

            No it wasn’t wrong. There was, and there still is room in here for two states, one for each people…

            …the local Arabs themselves are here because their forefathers invaded this land and they settled here. So 170 years ago, they faced an invasion too. Not one involving the sword but by immigrants returning to the lands of our forefathers who paid for the land that we settled on. And a lot of those lands were neglected swamps which we drained (read up about Petach Tikva).

            So, Mike, when are you going to realize that history is dynamic. You cannot freeze the status quo. Whether you like it or not, history is a case of musical chairs we know. We have been victims of it but now we have our chair back. Who knows what happens tomorrow. But we will leave that for tomorrow. But if it is up to us, we will go through hell and high water to stay because we know how much worse the alternatives are.

            MIKE:”again, i’m not the one living in the past. you guys are.”

            I am sorry to say Mike that you are. Read your own posts again. I just responded to you. Don’t get me wrong though. I am certainly not saying that the past is irrelevant. Often it is because of the past why things are the way they are.

            MIKE:”and your refusal to adopt a secular constitution which would allow christians, muslims, and atheists the complete and total exact same rights as jews is proof of that. “jewish states” and “islamic republics” are anachronistic in the 21st century.”

            Now you are just being simplistic and even condascending.

            Did you know that England is an Anglican state? It is formally a Christian state headed by the Monarch who is head of the Anglican church.

            Does England oppress it’s minorities on the whole? Although discrimination exists there too, it isn’t state sanctioned discrimination.

            We are still at war yet the situation is the same with us. And just wait and see how much better we could be in peace times even as a Jewish majority state. Or are you saying that we have inferior genes to the English?

            PS.

            Oh, and by the way, there are many other formal christian states. Look it up.

            Reply to Comment
    2. Yeah, Right

      Gustav: “What happened to the Jews who used to inhabit this area?”

      Maybe they left.
      Maybe they converted to Islam.
      Maybe the Islamists killed them.
      Maybe UFOs came down and carried them off.
      Maybe the Almighty appeared before them and ushered them all onto the Ultimate Stairway To Heaven.

      Maybe it was none of the above.

      I don’t know, and neither do you. Nobody does.

      Which does rather make speculative questions such as yours an exercise is utter pointlessness.

      Gustav: “I guess the activists will never talk about this or it’s ramifications.”

      There are no ramifications, sunshine.

      There is only the historical fact a synagogue was in existence in that location between the 4th to the 9th century CE, and after that the evidence for its continued use goes cold.

      Q: Why did it stop being used?
      A: Nobody knows.

      Q: Does finding the remains of a 9th century CE synagogue have any “ramification” with respect to the current ownership of this land?
      A: No, none whatsoever. Any “legal ownership” ceased in the 9th century, for reasons unknown.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Thank you sunshine for your touchy feely sensitive analysis. But wouldn’t you know? Upon further research, I came across this…

        “the village’s fortunes declined in the early Arab period, perhaps because the new Muslim overlords would not have tolerated its economy, which was based on wine.[4][5]”

        Sooooooooo…. since we are the current overlords. Can we too behave the same way towards them as they behaved towards us?

        Just askin’

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          I see the word “perhaps” in that *rather* speculative bit of “further research”.

          You missed it entirely, did you?

          You happen to believe that *their* speculation confirms (how, exactly?) *your* speculation?

          Can’t imagine why…..

          Gustav: “Sooooooooo…. since we are the current overlords”

          Indeed true: Israel is a 21st century overlord.

          Which means (du’oh!) that its “lordship” over this territory is governed – and constrained – by the laws that were created in the 20th century to cover just such an eventuality.

          Gustav: “Can we too behave the same way towards them as they behaved towards us?”

          The obvious answer is “no”, for precisely the reasons I have just given.

          What was done in the 9th century CE was done in…. the 9th century CE, which means that the lawfulness (or otherwise) of that “doing” was contingent upon what was legal back in…. the 9th century CE.

          By way of very marked contrast what is being done now is being done in…. the 21st century, and therefore its lawfulness (or otherwise) is contingent upon what is legal in…. the hear and now.

          Here, an easy way to illustrate that for you: Can “they” still behave in the same way towards “you” as they behaved towards “you” in the 9th century CE?

          My answer is “no, they can’t”.

          What’s yours?

          Gustav: “Just askin’”

          Oh, dude, of one thing we can all be certain: Gustav will ask lots and lots of Really Very Stupid Questions.

          That appears to be your singular talent…..

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You are are angry little man aren’t you sunshine? One is not stupid just for askin’. One is stupid for questioning how the Arab overloards behaved in the 9th century. There was no “perhaps” about it. They were HARSH. That was my main point in bringing up that passage which seems to make you so angry. Now, talking about “stupid”, this answer of yours was stupid…

            YR:”What was done in the 9th century CE was done in…. the 9th century CE, which means that the lawfulness (or otherwise) of that “doing” was contingent upon what was legal back in…. the 9th century CE.”

            It reminds me of the stoush we had here…

            http://972mag.com/occupation-is-the-problem-not-the-people-talking-about-it/107897/

            YR:”Because – du’oh! – the acquisition of territory by war was perfectly legit Way Back Then…”

            Remember? Back then you used the word “legit”, which you denied later, once you became aware what a weak ground you were on. Here you attempt to change tack and use the word “legal” rather than “legit”.

            …but it does not make your argument more moral or right. Why? Because back in the 9th century when the Arabs were the overlords of Palestine which they conquered and colonized, they decided what was or was not legal and there was no argument with them unless one wanted to have one’s head choped off as they still do figuratively (and often literally) wherever they are still in power, even though we are now in the 21st century.

            But here, in the WB, in area C, we are in power and we have a signed accord which says that Israeli civil law applies in area C. Get it? Israeli civil law! That means that Israeli courts decide what happens to tent cities which were built without permit. Yes, Israeli civil laws apply even on privately owned lands.

            As for my question as to whether we could do the same to them as they did to us, it was rhetorical. I asked it to make a point about how HARSH they were to us but there was no one who yelled at them on our behalf the way you hypocrites yell at us even though we are a lot less harsh and our civil laws clearly apply in area C of the WB.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav:”But here, in the WB, in area C, we are in power and we have a signed accord which says that Israeli civil law applies in area C.”

            Nooooooo, Israel does not have a signed accord which says that Israeli CIVIL law applies in Area C.

            The Oslo Accords say that Israel military AUTHORITY will continue to apply in Area C, as it has been since June 1967.

            “Civil Law” is not at all the same thing as “Military Authority”, and only a absolutely bone-headed idiot would confuse the two.

            Someone like…. well…. you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            YR:”Nooooooo, Israel does not have a signed accord which says that Israeli CIVIL law applies in Area C.”

            Sigh, [Yeah Right] is so oh’ ‘yeah wrong’ again. Why must I have to educate him all the time? Here, read this…

            http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_area_c_map_2011_02_22.pdf

            “Area C: Full Israeli control over security, planning and construction.”

            Get it, YR? Planning and construction. That means that Israel has the right to decide whether make shift tent villages can or cannot be erected in area C. Kapish? Sunshine?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “One is stupid for questioning how the Arab overloards behaved in the 9th century.”

            And that behaviour has “ramifications” with respect to this village…. how, exactly?

            Gustav: “There was no “perhaps” about it. They were HARSH.”

            And that harshness has “ramifications” with respect to this village…. how, exactly?

            Gustav: “That was my main point in bringing up that passage which seems to make you so angry.”

            No, your entire “point” has been to pointlessly insinuate that the presence of a synagogue in the 9th century CE had some “ramification” that (and how funny is this?) you can’t ever seem to articulate.

            How. Very. Odd.

            The presence of the ruins of a synagogue appears to be an all-important “gotcha!” moment in your mind, even though you can’t actually articulate why.

            How. Very. Odd.

            It’s almost as if you are an idiot who gets excited by the inconsequential, but is too stupid to understand that it’s… inconsequential.

            Laughable, really, in a sad, sad kinda’ way.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Gustav: “One is stupid for questioning how the Arab overloards behaved in the 9th century.”

            YR”And that behaviour has “ramifications” with respect to this village…. how, exactly?”

            Ya really wanna know, sunshine? Ok then, since you insist…

            The Arabs when they are overlords, then AND now, still are harsh. So don’t act so distraught if they don’t get their way when they are NOT the overlords!

            Gustav: “There was no “perhaps” about it. They were HARSH.”

            YR:”And that harshness has “ramifications” with respect to this village…. how, exactly?”

            They were harsh with us, don’t expect us to be kind to them. Howzat?

            Gustav: “That was my main point in bringing up that passage which seems to make you so angry.”

            YR:”No, your entire “point” has been to pointlessly insinuate that the presence of a synagogue in the 9th century CE had some “ramification” that (and how funny is this?) you can’t ever seem to articulate.”

            Now he is telling me what MY point was. What a jerk…

            But since you insist, yes, the synagogue shows that we were in this area way before the Arab invaders colonized these territories. A bit like the Aborigines of Australia were in Australia before the arrival of the Europeans.

            YR:”How. Very. Odd.”

            Yep, you are odd indeed in a hypocritical kinda way…

            YR:”The presence of the ruins of a synagogue appears to be an all-important “gotcha!” moment in your mind, even though you can’t actually articulate why.”

            I can’t help it if you are obtuse. But now that I explained it to you above, it should be clear even to you, YR.

            YR:”It’s almost as if you are an idiot who gets excited by the inconsequential, but is too stupid to understand that it’s… inconsequential.”

            If I were you YR, I would refrain from bringing up the subject of “Idiot” coz if you wanna see an idiot? Look in the mirror.

            YR:”Laughable, really, in a sad, sad kinda’ way.”

            Yeah right, laughable indeed. I laughed at you so much already that I am almost getting tired of it. After all, one can even get tired of laughter. But thanks for the laugh anyway…

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “The Arabs when they are overlords, then AND now, still are harsh.”

            Ahem. The Arabs are not “overlords now”, Gustav. Quite the reverse.

            Gustav: “So don’t act so distraught if they don’t get their way when they are NOT the overlords!”

            As far as logic goes that is… well… there is no logic there whatsoever.

            The 9th century was “harsh”, no question.

            But that “harshness” then has no “ramifications” now – in the here-and-now such behaviour is illegal, and it is illegal regardless of who does it.

            So your argument (such as it is) is the very definition of nonsensical, since it amounts to nothing more than a claim that because *they* did it *then* therefore that means that *we* are entitled to do it *now*.

            No, nobody is entitled to behave that way now.

            Gustav: “They were harsh with us, don’t expect us to be kind to them. Howzat?”

            Well, I could suggest that “that” is oh-so-Old-Testament, eye-for-an-eye nonsense.

            Or I could simply point out that the “logic” in that argument is completely lacking.

            They can not act that way *now*.

            Nobody can, and because that is true then you can’t claim that “your harshness” is kosher merely because, somehow (how, exactly?), it’s OK because it’s “your turn”.

            Gustav: “Now he is telling me what MY point was. What a jerk…”

            I can hardly help it if you have twisted yourself into such a knot that you’ve forgotten what your first post was all about.

            After all, it’s still there as First Cab Off The Rank.

            What a dimwit.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Gustav: “The Arabs when they are overlords, then AND now, still are harsh.”

            YR:”Ahem. The Arabs are not “overlords now”, Gustav. Quite the reverse.”

            Really? The Sunni Arabs are not overlords of the minorities in most of the Middle East and North Africa?

            They are not overlords of the Copts? The Druze? The Christians? The Assyrians? The Yazidis? And other minorities? How are those people treated, YR?

            Gustav: “So don’t act so distraught if they don’t get their way when they are NOT the overlords!”

            YR:”As far as logic goes that is… well… there is no logic there whatsoever.

            The 9th century was “harsh”, no question.”

            The Arab world has not changed all that much since the 9th century. Unless you are blind YR. Of course you are…

            YR:”But that “harshness” then has no “ramifications” now – in the here-and-now such behaviour is illegal, and it is illegal regardless of who does it.”

            Actually it does. Especially since they are still HARSH!

            YR:”So your argument (such as it is) is the very definition of nonsensical, since it amounts to nothing more than a claim that because *they* did it *then* therefore that means that *we* are entitled to do it *now*.”

            Do what, YR? We are certainly entitled to stop the erection of an unauthorized tent village.

            YR:”No, nobody is entitled to behave that way now.”

            Nobody? Ya mean in Australia, your government allows the erection of an unauthorized tent village? Do tell…

            Gustav: “They were harsh with us, don’t expect us to be kind to them. Howzat?”

            YR:”Well, I could suggest that “that” is oh-so-Old-Testament, eye-for-an-eye nonsense.”

            You could suggest any BS you want sunshine. But then again, I can suggest that you shove your suggestion up where the sun does not shine. Howzat?

            YR:”Or I could simply point out that the “logic” in that argument is completely lacking.”

            When it comes to logic, you just ain’t qualified, sunshine.

            YR:”They can not act that way *now*.

            No? I beg to differ. Read what I said above.

            YR:”Nobody can, and because that is true then you can’t claim that “your harshness” is kosher merely because, somehow (how, exactly?), it’s OK because it’s “your turn”.

            What harshness? Not allowing the erection of an unauthorized tent village? Show me a western country that allows such things?

            Gustav: “Now he is telling me what MY point was. What a jerk…”

            YR:”I can hardly help it if you have twisted yourself into such a knot that you’ve forgotten what your first post was all about.”

            And I can hardly help it if your comprehension is so poor that you do not comprehend what you are actually told. Or if you twist it into your straw man.

            YR:”After all, it’s still there as First Cab Off The Rank.

            What a dimwit.”

            Yep, you are qualified to comment on dimwits, being a first rate dimwit yourself. But you ain’t necessarily right with your comment, dimwit.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “But since you insist, yes, the synagogue shows that we were in this area way before the Arab invaders colonized these territories.”

            And? So?

            There are no “ramifications” arising from that bit o’ archaeological information, and you have yet to give even the slightest hint of any reason to the contrary.

            Gustav: “A bit like the Aborigines of Australia were in Australia before the arrival of the Europeans.”

            And? So?

            At least with the Aborigines of Australia there is a documented transfer of title – however violent that was – whereas in the case of this adandoned-by-the-4th-century synagogue there’s….. nothing.

            Nothing at all, except your evidence-free speculations, “supported” by nothing else but your undocumented quotes from other people’s speculations.

            So if we are looking for an apt analogy *this* would be much more like it:
            A bit like digging under the rubble of that synagogue and finding the remains of an Ancient Roman Temple lying underneath.

            The “ramifications” of which would be….. nothing.

            Nothing at all.

            It certainly wouldn’t suggest that Italy has some still-existing claim to this land, nor would it suggest that Italian carpet-baggers have a “right” to come over to abuse and dispossess the locals.

            Dude, there is a reason why even the IDF doesn’t go any further back than “citing Ottoman deeds” (Haaretz), though I doubt very much that you have either the wit nor the wisdom to understand why.

            Care to hazard a guess?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Part 1 of 2

            Gustav: “But since you insist, yes, the synagogue shows that we were in this area way before the Arab invaders colonized these territories.”

            YR:”And? So?”

            I bet you ask the same question off your aborigines too, eh YR? You anti colonizer you… or more like a hypocrite, No?!

            YR:”There are no “ramifications” arising from that bit o’ archaeological information, and you have yet to give even the slightest hint of any reason to the contrary.”

            You are in denial, sunshine.

            Gustav: “A bit like the Aborigines of Australia were in Australia before the arrival of the Europeans.”

            YR:”And? So?”

            Sheeeeeesh, what a hypocrite. This man once told me that he hates colonizers. I guess, not so much when it comes to his own back yard…

            YR:”At least with the Aborigines of Australia there is a documented transfer of title – however violent that was – whereas in the case of this adandoned-by-the-4th-century synagogue there’s….. nothing.”

            Nah, you are right about that. We never signed our lands over to the Arab invaders who colonized our lands in the 7th century.

            YR:”Nothing at all, except your evidence-free speculations, “supported” by nothing else but your undocumented quotes from other people’s speculations.”

            Evidence free? I don’t suppose you consider main straem history books which talk about the kingdom of Judea which was conquered by the Romans, as evidence? How about the myriad of archeological findings which confirm the presence of the Jewish people on these lands? Nah, such things do not constitute evidence to the likes of you. You only believe your own lies, right?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            YR:”Nooooooo, Israel does not have a signed accord which says that Israeli CIVIL law applies in Area C.”

            Sigh, [Yeah Right] is so oh’ ‘yeah wrong’ again. Why must I have to educate him all the time? Here, read this…

            http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_area_c_map_2011_02_22.pdf

            “Area C: Full Israeli control over security, planning and construction.”

            Get it, YR? Planning and construction. That means that Israel has the right to decide whether make shift tent villages can or cannot be erected in area C. Kapish? Sunshine?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Area C: Full Israeli control over security, planning and construction.”

            *sigh*. Note that the quote above does not say “Area C: Full Israeli CIVIL LAW control over security, planning and construction.”

            Kapish, stupid?

            An occupying power has a.u.t.h.o.r.i.t.y. over an occupied territory – nobody disputes that, least of all me.

            So what that quote tells you is that the Oslo Accords accepted that even after this Accord the IDF would still have control over “security, planning and construction”.

            But here’s the rub, stoooooopid: that control is constrained by the international humanitarian laws that pertain to a belligerent occupation.

            Q: Why?
            A: Because (have I mentioned this before? I think I have) the a.u.t.h.o.r.i.t.y. that an occupying power has over “security, planning and construction” is granted to it by that very same IHL.

            Q: Which means?
            A: That authority does not – repeat, does not – get granted to the occupier by its own CIVIL LAW.

            With that in mind…..

            Gustav: “That means that Israel has the right to decide whether make shift tent villages can or cannot be erected in area C.”

            No, it most definitely doesn’t, and for the reasons given above i.e. the “right to decide” is granted to the IDF – and is constrained by – the authority granted to it by International Humanitarian Law, as is true of All Occupying Powers Everywhere.

            And included in those constraints upon the authority of an occupier is this one: “Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.”

            The IDF has in its possession a copy of an Ottoman Deed that says that THESE VILLAGERS OWN THIS LAND. It no longer disputes this.

            Which means that the IDF is unconditionally prohibited from demolishing this village, precisely because THE VILLAGES OWN THIS LAND, AND THEREFORE THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY CAN NOT BE CONFISCATED.

            Kapish, stupid?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Sigh what an obfuscator. He could have uttered his nonsense in three sentences instead of the convoluted garbage which he spewed.

            Now observe why Yeah Right is yeah o’ so wrong…

            In any civilized country, if a group of people attempts to build anything, let alone a tent village, without the appropriate permits, the authorities remove the unauthorized structures quick smart. And no human rights organization would say as much as boo about it.

            But according to our brain-dead YR, Israel has no right to do the same thing in this situation even though it clearly has the authority to do so.

            Go take your medications YR. then again, don’t bother. You are too far gone…

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Looky here what I discovered on the net. Seeing that our brain-dead friend, YR professes to be Australian, I looked for an Australian example…

            http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/about/access-to-information/removals-procedure.pdf

            “5.0 CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE REMOVAL OF A STRUCTURE MAY BE REQUIRED

            5.1 Roads and Maritimes Services may require the removal of a private waterfront structure, or part of a private waterfront structure, if:-

            a) The structure or part of the structure is unauthorised.

            b)…,..”

            So what was YR’s claim? He claimed that the IDF is subordinated to the IHL which has the right to prohibit the IDF from removing the unauthorized tent village because it is on private property. Why? Because … wait for it…. of that dreaded word “THE OCCUPATION”!

            But wait a minute … compare that to the rights which any civic authority has anywhere … including in Australia… to remove unauthorized structures even from private property.

            Yet according to YR, Israeli authorities haven’t got the same right???!!!!!

            What BS, being occuppied does not endow extra privileges on the occupied, does it?! …

            …don’t answer that YR, you are liable to make o fool of yourself. On second thought… you already made a fool of yourself, you dope!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “YR professes to be Australian, I looked for an Australian example…”

            *sigh*.

            By the numbers…..
            1) Yes, I am an Australian
            2) No, there can be no “Australian examples”.

            And the reason why there can be no “Australian examples” is obvious: The Commonwealth of Australia is not an occupying power anywhere inside the continent of Australia and, therefore, the laws that it passes are not proscribed by International Humanitarian Law.

            Gustav: “5.0 CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE REMOVAL OF A STRUCTURE MAY BE REQUIRED”

            *sigh*

            My friend has just quoted from the domestic law of a sovereign power regarding the treatment of property rights in territory over which its civil law has jurisdiction.

            Dude, you haven’t been paying attention, have you?

            A sovereign power is, like, *sovereign*.

            Its civil law has jurisdiction within its own sovereign territory (because, you know, its *sovereign*) and so no other source of authority can proscribe its actions.

            Its Laws Rule, OK?

            An occupying power is *not* *the* *sovereign*. Its own civil law therefore has no jurisdiction anywhere within the territory that it holds under its belligerent and, furthermore, what authority it does possesses is granted to it by International Humanitarian Law.

            Its Laws Do Not Rule, OK?

            Which all means this: you have just compared an Apple with an Orange.

            You can quote any number of Australian legislative acts that you want, and the reply will always be the same: THOSE LAWS ONLY APPLY INSIDE AUSTRALIA, BUT INSIDE AUSTRALIA THOSE LAWS RULE.

            You can quote any number of Israeli legislative acts that you want, and the reply will always be the same: THOSE LAWS ONLY APPLY INSIDE ISRAEL, AND THE WEST BANK IS NOT INSIDE ISRAEL.

            Honestly, are you really this dense, or do you have to practice, practice, practice in order to be this stoopid?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yep, poor old YR. he has gone into obfuscation mode. He is ranting and raving about anything and everything except addressing the very pertinent questions which I raised…

            …yep, he is panicking alright. LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Gustav you lost this argument. Plain as day. Put a fork in it. When you’ve been check mated, sitting there and feebly moving make believe pieces about and muttering to yourself is not attractive. (And in this situation telling the other guy to take his meds is simply descending to “BigCat level.” A place no self-respecting person goes.)

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            LOL Benny…

            He is playing his superhero rubberstamp-man role again.

            The day, you are going to be an impartial authority on these pages about who wins or loses arguments, that day, I will hang up my boots and stop sparring with you guys because it will no longer be necessary to present Israel’s side too on these pages.

            …in the meanwhile, your comment has been filed in the most appropriate place for it, the WPB. LOL.

            Actually, thanks for posting your inane comment. It is a sure sign that you are worried about poor old YR’s performance…

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            You flat out lost the argument about civil law, and that Ottoman deed is a piece blocking your king’s last escape route. Here’s how desperate you are:

            “What BS, being occuppied does not endow extra privileges on the occupied, does it?!”

            Hahahahahahahahahahahah!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “What BS, being occuppied does not endow extra privileges on the occupied, does it?!”

            Ben: “Hahahahahahahahahahahah!”

            Indeed.

            I think I can safely add the phrase “protected persons” to the list of very important legal concepts about which Gustav is completely and utterly ignorant.

            Because he does appear to be unaware that “being occupied” means that IHL defines you as a “protected person”.

            And since he isn’t even aware of that concept then he certainly isn’t going to be able to comprehend what that must mean about the “rights” of an occupier to turf a “protected person” out of his own property.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “He is playing his superhero rubberstamp-man role again.”

            What is so damned funny about that statement is that Gustav’s self-believe is as unshakeable as it is totally misplaced.

            Dude, you are so ignorant of this topic that you can’t even begin to comprehend how utterly wrong you are.

            Yours is The Arrogance Of Ignorance, Writ Large.

            As I said, damned funny. But in a very unseemly and very, very ugly way.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ben, this is very simple: Gustav is a man who is so stupid that he doesn’t even realize that he has no idea what he is talking about.

            If you go over his lamentable posts you can see that he has no idea that there is any difference between
            a) International Human Rights Law
            b) International Humanitarian Law

            You’ll also see that he doesn’t have the faintest idea of the difference between:
            a) A sovereign power (i.e. the Commonwealth of Australia in Australian territory)
            b) An occupying power (i.e. the IDF inside Israeli-occupied territory)

            His last two posts to me illustrate that conclusively.

            Because in the first of those two posts he clearly believes that I am complaining about an infringement on these villager’s human rights.

            I am not. I am pointing out that International Humanitarian Law very clearly prohibits an occupying power from confiscating the private property of those that it holds under its belligerent occupation.

            And in the latter case Gustav appears to believe that he can quote Australian Law regarding what Australian Authorities can do with ramshackle structures inside Australian territory, and that this “proves” that the IDF can do the same thing inside a territory that it holds under its belligerent occupation.

            He is wrong, and a simple hypothetical can make that abundantly clear to everyone who Isn’t Gustav.

            Here, consider this: the ADF (the Australian Defence Force) launches a sudden onslaught on the IDF (the Israel Defence Force), and defeats it.

            This defeat is so comprehensive that the IDF has no option but to retreat helter-skelter out of the West Bank, and so the Australia Army replaces the Israeli Army as the army of occupation in the West Bank.

            Q: Can that Australian army commander then quote “5.0 CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE REMOVAL OF A STRUCTURE MAY BE REQUIRED” in order to demolish of the village of Susya?A: No, of course not.

            Q: Why not?
            A: Susya isn’t inside Australia, stoopid, and it is axiomatic that Australian legislation has no jurisdiction inside this territory.

            If that Australian commander wants to demolish Susya then he has to quote some article of INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW that gives him the authority to demolish private property inside an occupied territory.

            Which he can’t do, because IHL clearly prohibits an occupier from doing that.

            Honestly, if Gustav can’t comprehend that simple fact (and, apparently, he can’t) then He Is As Stupid As Stupid Can Be.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “In any civilized country, if a group of people attempts to build anything, let alone a tent village, without the appropriate permits, the authorities remove the unauthorized structures quick smart. And no human rights organization would say as much as boo about it.”

            *chortle*

            It should be enough to point out to everyone else (it’s pointless pointing this out to Gustav) that my argumentative little friend has just demonstrated quite convincingly that he has not the slightest idea what he is talking about.

            That is axiomatic, because it is clear from the above quote that Gustav doesn’t know the difference between International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law.

            Dude, the issue here is a prohibition under International Humanitarian Law.

            What A Prize Dimwit.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Ooh I see I hit some raw nerves eh? A flurry of obfuscating posts which say mostly nothing…

            The bit that our YR essentially says is this…

            He admits that it is perfectly normal for sovereign countries to demolish unauthorized structures, such as tent villages, even on private property.

            …however, YR is trying to assert that if a territory is occupied, the relevant authorities haven’t got the right to do the same things under the same circumstances.

            …funny that… what he is essentially claiming is that an occupied people have more rights than a people of a sovereign country…

            …very counter intuitive to anyone except the one eyed and the gullible…

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            ….yep, I am beginning to warm up to this discussion. Their (YR’s and Benny’s) panic is palpable…

            Essentially, what YR is saying is that a population which is under occupation can erect ANY structure on their private properties. And the occupying power is not allowed to do ANYTHING about it.

            Let’s see, they can build …

            – tent villages?
            – garbage dumps?
            – fortified bunkers?
            – a fifty storey building?
            – what else?

            …all without any authorisation from the occupying power.

            You cannot be serious YR. There, I said it, and I am not even John McEnroe. But YOU, yes, YOU, YR, are definitely a clown. LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Essentially, what YR is saying is that a population which is under occupation can erect ANY structure on their private properties.”

            *chortle*

            What I am saying is that International Humanitarian Law proscribes what an occupying power can – and cannot – do.

            And one of the things that an occupier is unconditionally prohibited from doing is destroying the private property of those who are under its belligerent occupation.

            Annnnnnnnnd, one more time because this never gets old: “Land at village slated for demolition privately owned by Palestinians. Civil Administration report obtained by Haaretz cites Ottoman deed” (Haaretz, 26/07/2015)

            So sorry, but that means that demolishing this village so that Israel can confiscate the land for an Israelis-only village is an illegal act.

            Q: Why?
            A: Because of this prohibition: “Private property cannot be confiscated.”

            You ***do*** understand the plain definition of the word “prohibited”, correct?

            You ***do*** know what the word “cannot” means, right?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “what he is essentially claiming is that an occupied people have more rights than a people of a sovereign country”

            A stunning statement of an ignorant misunderstanding of international humanitarian law.

            Dude, IHL isn’t about giving “more rights” to the occupied, but of ensuring that they are “protected”.

            Because this will come as a complete shock to Gustav, but those who are “being occupied” have a legally-defined status under international humanitarian law.

            That status is this: they are defined as “protected persons”.

            Now I will invite Gustav to have three attempts at identifying just who it is that those “people” are “protected” from.

            I’ll even give him a hint: it isn’t the Roads and Maritimes Services of Australia.

            Care to give it a shot, Gustav?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Sooooooooo….

            Because the occupied are protected from the eeeeeeeevil occupiers, they are allowed to build anything on their private properties, without permits, right YR?

            Annnnnnnd even if they buildthings like ….

            – tent villages
            – garbage dumps
            – fortified bunkers
            – a fifty storey building
            – what else?

            …the eeeeeeevil occupiers are not allowed to demolish any of those structures?

            Are you serious, YR?!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Because the occupied are protected from the eeeeeeeevil occupiers, they are allowed to build anything on their private properties, without permits, right YR?”

            You keep asking the wrong question, dude.

            The issue is this: What Is The Occupier Allowed To Do?
            Even more so: What ISN’T The Occupier Allowed To Do?

            One more time, yet again: the occupier is not allowed to do as it pleases.

            It is not the sovereign.

            It does not possess sovereignty over an occupied territory, it only possesses “authority”, and that “authority” is granted to it by international humanitarian law.

            So if IHL says that an occupier has the authority to do *this* then, yeah, the occupier can do *this*.

            Equally, if IHL says that an occupier CANNOT do *this* then – holy crap Batman! – the occupier CANNOT DO THIS.

            Now, once more:
            Q: Can an occupier demolish private property in order to dispossess the occupied?
            A: No. an occupier CANNOT do this.

            Q: Says who?
            A: Article 45: “Private property cannot be confiscated”.

            Gustav: “Are you serious, YR?!”

            Article 45 is perfectly serious: “Private Property Cannot Be Confiscated”.

            Omer-Man is perfectly serious: “The document reportedly says that Susya’s residents own the land they live on, a fact that would make forcefully transferring them elsewhere more difficult.”

            Barak Ravid (Haaretz) is perfectly serious: “Civil Administration report obtained by Haaretz cites Ottoman deed, may halt planned demolitions in West Bank village of Sussia”

            An Occupying Power CANNOT confiscate private property.

            Susya is private property.

            QED: Susya cannot be demolished so that the villagers can be forced out and replaced by Israeli “settlers”.

            *sheesh*

            How difficult is that to comprehend?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            YR:”Article 45 is perfectly serious: “Private Property Cannot Be Confiscated”

            Earth to YR!!! Are you there, YR?! …

            …this thread is NOT, I repeat, NOT land confiscations. It is about whether Israel is allowed to demolish the unauthorised structures, the tent village which the Palestinian Arabs built without appropriate authorization on their private property. You say, the occupied are protected by IHL…

            Sooooooooo…. I repeat……

            Because the occupied are protected from the eeeeeeeevil occupiers, they are allowed to build anything on their private properties, without permits, right YR?

            Annnnnnnd even if they buildthings like ….

            – tent villages
            – garbage dumps
            – fortified bunkers
            – a fifty storey building
            – what else?

            …the eeeeeeevil occupiers are not allowed to demolish any of those structures?

            Are you serious, YR?!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “this thread is NOT, I repeat, NOT land confiscations.”

            Dude, have you even bothered to read this article?

            This article makes it very clear that the IDF wants to demolish these structures so that it can confiscate this land.

            And I am perfectly correct: International Humanitarian Law says that an occupying power cannot do that.

            Gustav: “It is about whether Israel is allowed to demolish the unauthorised structures, the tent village which the Palestinian Arabs built without appropriate authorization on their private property.”

            No, THIS thread is about an excavated synagogue in Susya dated from the 4th to the 7th century, and about your insinuated-but-never-explained claim that this had “ramifications” w.r.t. Israel’s “rights” to demolish this village.

            Honestly, Gustav, you can’t be serious.

            Q: Is Israel “allowed” to demolish these privately-owned structures?

            The USA says no.
            The EU says no.
            Even the IDF (via a leak to Haaretz) says no.

            And here’s a prediction for you, dude: now that the Israel High Court of Justice is aware that the IDF is in possession of Ottoman-era deeds showing that this village is private property then the ruling from that court will be this: “no”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I don’t know sunshine. The following quote clearly demonstrates that the thread is about demolition …

            “The Israeli army has issued repeated demolition orders against the village on the grounds that none of its tents and tin shacks were erected with the proper permits”

            You are claiming that it’s about confiscation too? Well, that is just your claim. But in any case, let’s handle one issue at a time. First address the issue of demolition …

            Sooooooooo…. I repeat……

            Because the occupied are protected from the eeeeeeeevil occupiers, they are allowed to build anything on their private properties, without permits, right YR?

            Annnnnnnd even if they build things like ….

            – tent villages
            – garbage dumps
            – fortified bunkers
            – a fifty storey building
            – what else?

            …the eeeeeeevil occupiers are not allowed to demolish any of those structures?

            Are you serious, YR?! Annnnnnd… how long are you going to be dodging my very clear question, mmmmmm, YR?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “The USA says no”

            As usual, the US is focusing on the political, rather than the legal ramifications of demolition…

            “We are concerned that the demolition may worsen the atmosphere for a peaceful resolution…”

            That’s what the USA has said. Which bit of that is a legal argument, mmmmmm???? Sunshine?????

            And this is a statement by one EU official…

            “Alistair McPhail, Britain’s consul general, called the demolition policy “an impediment to the two-state solution”, generally defined as Israel alongside a Palestinian state.”

            …which bit of THAT is a legal argument against demolition, dude?

            …other EU officials object to demolition on the basisis of an allegation such as yours, that demolition is a prelude to confiscation.

            But again, that is just an allegation. And even if true, it certainly isn’t a legal argument against demolition. It is just a political strategy to make confiscation more difficult.

            Soooooo again….

            …do tell us YR, dear, what legal argument is there against the demolition of structures erected, even on private property, if they were erected illegally as this tent village was?

            Are you going to dodge this question again, sunshine?!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            How many times will you pretend that you do not understand this? The occupier is prohibited from demolishing the tents these people are living in on their own land—tents they are being forced to live in as a consequence of the very actions of the occupiers. And the occupier cannot confiscate the land they own. (The removal of the tents is of course just a step in the attempt to confiscate their land. You know that but pretend you don’t.) Destroying these people’s homes and transferring them off their own property and confiscating it is not just prohibited it is outright persecution of occupied people by an occupier.

            People do not “build” garbage dumps. They would resort to them when the occupying power refused to do its duty of providing basic services. The many dishonesties and outright absurdities (in your several attempts to cover up the fact that you lost the argument) that you are engaging in is exemplified by that word “build.”

            Gustav lost the legal argument many posts ago. Period. Apples are not oranges. Australia is not the West Bank. Civil law applied by a sovereign is not IHL applied by an occupier. Etc. Put a fork in it. The legal argument is over. It is useful to look at the meta-communication though.

            – It is interesting how obfuscators and panickers projectively deploy accusations of “obfuscation” and “panic.” So clearly projection.

            – It is interesting that following on that is the incredibly lame insinuation (it can’t actually be called an argument) that amounts to amounts to “geez, occupied people can’t just build *anything* can they?!” Note the posture of the aggrieved and shocked tone. Note the attempt to invert the question that matters: “What is the occupier not allowed to do?” becomes “What outrageous or simply silly things that I dream up are the occupied allowed to do?” followed by absurd pseudo-threats: bunkers and 50-story skyscrapers to be erected by dirt poor shepherds hounded at every turn by occupying troops and their obnoxious settler proxies.

            – It is interesting that Gustav seems to be insinuating that since Israel has obstinately extended its illegal occupation for 48 years that it magically earns on the basis of that very obstinacy the right to apply a magical imaginary law about magical imaginary pseudo-problems that, in the infinite Borgesian imaginary library of all possible interminable occupation situations, could possibly arise: “They can’t just build *anything* can they?!” In this library are even “the occupied people who like to build garbage dumps and have garbage dump architects and theories of garbage dump architecture and a School of Garbage Dump Architects….” That is how desperate Gustav is.

            And Gustav has done all this merely to cover up the fact that he has lost the argument.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BEN:”How many times will you pretend that you do not understand this? The occupier is prohibited from demolishing the tents these people are living in on their own land—tents”

            YOU are the one who does not understand Benny since both you and YR refuse to answer my below question which I asked how many times now?

            If your claim would be true then, they can build …

            – tent villages?
            – garbage dumps?
            – fortified bunkers?
            – a fifty storey building?
            – what else?

            …all without any authorisation from the occupying power.

            You cannot be serious. There, I said it, and I am not even John McEnroe. But YOU, yes, YOU and YR, are definitely a clowns. LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            But looking back at his post again, Benny sorta answered it….

            …wait for it, he said they would not do that…. I am just raising imaginary problems…

            …nevertheless, according to Benny, they COULD build all sorta things without permits and the occupier would have no right to do anything about it…

            …why? Because Benny and YR say so. What clowns.

            …and yes, if their claim would be true that occupiers are not allowed to demolish unauthorised structures, then it WOULD entail the occupied people more priviliged than sovereign people who are not occupied. Because, clearly, governments ANYWHERE, do not allow anyone to build unauthorised structures even on private lands. Which bit of that is funny Benny? That is the implication of your stupid assertion.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “Because, clearly, governments ANYWHERE, do not allow anyone to build unauthorised structures even on private lands.”

            What’s so risible about this statement, aside from its perseverativeness and obtuseness regarding the CLEAR legal issues indisputably, conclusively hashed out here, is that it is as plain as day that the Israeli government allows all sorts of (Jewish) people to build all sorts of unauthorized structures all over the West Bank, on other people’s lands, all the time. The Israeli government has made a practice over 48 years of allowing unauthorized structures to be built and maintained and carefully protected while erecting a whole complex scaffolding of obfuscations and deceptions and pretend interventions surrounding that allowing of the unauthorized. The police, the army, the courts, the “civil administration,” etc., are a MACHINE of allowing unauthorized structures, as long as they are Jewish unauthorized structures, to be built. Just who do you think you’re kidding?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yes Benny, we know you are fixated and obsessive and you walk around in a permanent state of outrage about your favorite topics. But let’s just stick to your stupid claim, shall we?

            You say that the occupiers are not authorized to remove unauthorized structures which the poor old occupied peoples erect on their private properties…

            …that means, if your claim would be true, that they can build anything they like on private property. But such things just don’t happen anywhere. Whether in occupied or un occupied lands. Structures are only allowed to be built if the authorities issue permits. Failing that, the authorities can and do remove unauthorized structures even tent villages. Anywhere else in the world in occupied or unoccupied lands any time in history.

            But because of your fixated and permanent state of outrage at us, you imagine that we alone are not going to do whatever everyone else does in our place? Go drink some cool aid Benny.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BEN:”t it is as plain as day that the Israeli government allows all sorts of (Jewish) people to build all sorts of unauthorized structures all over the West Bank,”

            Actually, that is a lie Benny. The IDF has demolished many unauthorised Jewish built outposts in the past.

            The ones that it has not destroyed are either authorized or are earmarked to be removed.

            In any case, no people in the known history of mankind anywhere, anytime, has treated it’s self declared and practicing enemies by the same standards that it treats it’s own. Get used to it, Benny dear. We are no different to anyone else in that regard. So stop your stupid indignation about that. It does not impress anyone except morons who share your ideology of hatred against us.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ben: “What’s so risible about this statement”….

            Actually, what’s so risible about this entire thread is the lengths to which Gustav will go to erect one straw man after another in order to avoid the central fact about these home demolitions.

            Which is – du’oh! – the reason the IDF intends to demolish these structures is so that it can evict the villagers, confiscate the land, and then build an Israeli settlement in its place.

            That’s an illegal act, and I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve explained to Gustav exactly why that is an illegal act.

            And….. Gustav simply ignores the illegality of demolishing privately-owned structures so that the occupier can then confiscate the privately-owned land on which those structures are located.

            Instead he spouts nonsense about a long-abandoned 4th century synagogue.

            After which he starts spouting nonsense about Israel’s “right” to indulge in eye-for-an-eye vendettas for acts that may (or may not, it’s pure speculation) have taken place in the 9th century.

            After which he starts spouting nonsense about the applicability of Australia planning and construction legislation to structures located in Australia to the applicability of the domestic civil law of an occupying power to (foreign, remember) territory being held according to the authority granted to that occupier by international humanitarian law.

            All nonsense, as he well knows because he has – however grudgingly – dropped each and every one of them as their senselessness is pointed out to him.

            So we are now at his FORTH attempt to erect a straw man, which is that we should simply ignore the fact – and it is fact, and admitted as such by Israel – that the IDF wants to demolish these structures b.e.c.a.u.s.e. it wants to confiscate the private property on which those structures are located.

            According to Gustav we should not mention that, OK, because if we do then he will have to come up with a FIFTH straw man argument.

            Which is a prospect that we can all hold in dread, most of all by Gustav who will then have to come up with Yet Another Pissweak Attempt to obscure the fact that he is defending the indefensible.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            LOL.

            YR and Benny consoling each other. Poor souls. They think that by patting each other on the shoulder and high fiving each other, it makes their absurd claims right.

            Here, get this into ya dudes (again).

            Illegal unauthorised structures erected by anyone or any group anywhere in the world, may be and are targeted by demolition orders.

            Ramshackle tent villages are not an exception to that rule.

            Live with it. Or not, for all we care. But that is just a fact of life!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “You are claiming that it’s about confiscation too?”

            Oh, please, spare me.

            Are you really going to pretend that you DON’T know that the reason why the IDF wants to demolish these structures is because it is the first act in their plan to relocate these villagers so that a new Israeli settlement can be built in their place?

            Really?

            Gustav: “Well, that is just your claim.”

            No, actually, it is part of the IDF’s submission to the Israel High Court of Justice.

            As in: the IDF has said that it plans to forcibly relocate these villagers to make way for a new Israeli “settlement”, and these demolitions are the first step in that action.

            How can you NOT know that and still pretend that you know what you are talking about?

            Gustav: “But in any case, let’s handle one issue at a time.”

            No, let’s not. The IDF plans to forcibly relocate these villagers so that this land can be confiscated for a new Israeli settlement, and the demolition of these structures is the first step in enacting that plan.

            Q: Does that make the demolition of these structure illegal?
            A: Yes, it does.

            Gustav: “First address the issue of demolition”

            I just did. You can not divorce the action from its intentions.

            The PURPOSE of these demolitions is the confiscation of the land on which those structures sit. That land is their private property. The demolitions are therefore an illegal act, precisely because an occupying power cannot confiscate private property.

            Now, so sorry, but You Are Wrong, and you don’t get to be Any Less Wrong but attempting a ludicrous game of reductio ad absurdum.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Part 1 of 2

            Gustav: “You are claiming that it’s about confiscation too?”

            YR:”Oh, please, spare me.

            Are you really going to pretend that you DON’T know that the reason why the IDF wants to demolish these structures is because it is the first act in their plan to relocate these villagers so that a new Israeli settlement can be built in their place?

            Really?”

            Yes. Until you show me in black and white a plan to confiscate private lands. I am not going down the path of your conspiracy theory.

            Gustav: “Well, that is just your claim.”

            YR:”No, actually, it is part of the IDF’s submission to the Israel High Court of Justice.

            As in: the IDF has said that it plans to forcibly relocate these villagers to make way for a new Israeli “settlement”, and these demolitions are the first step in that action.”

            Give me a link to a non Palestinian propaganda site which substaniates your wild assertion, and I will believe you.

            In the meanwhile I will treat your claim as a lie. Especially since I have already caught you lying in the past.

            YR:”How can you NOT know that and still pretend that you know what you are talking about?

            I’ll tell you what I do know, YR…

            I know that you are desperate to be right…

            I also know based on past experience that when you are desperate, you tend to lie. Don’t even try to deny it or I’ll point you to a thread where you denied your own spoken words.

            Gustav: “But in any case, let’s handle one issue at a time.”

            YR:”No, let’s not. The IDF plans to forcibly relocate these villagers so that this land can be confiscated for a new Israeli settlement, and the demolition of these structures is the first step in enacting that plan.”

            Please yourself, YR. but just because you assert things without proof, it isn’t gospel truth. Get it?

            The IDF has been planning to demolish unauthorised structures, a tent village, which your Palestinians erected. Nothing unusual about that. Such things are done routinely anywhere in the world under similar circumstances.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Until you show me in black and white a plan to confiscate private lands. I am not going down the path of your conspiracy theory.”

            Oh, please, stop humiliating yourself.

            http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/2FE3897FF3C1445B85256A3F006604BB

            Paragraph 242: “The Government and the World Zionist Organization yesterday decided to establish eight settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. But so far there is money for just three, so approval of five settlements was given “in principle”. The three settlements where actual work is to begin are: Susia, in the southern sector of Mount Hebron; Kokhva, south of Gush Etzion; and Ginat, north-west of Jenin. A government source said 20 million Israel shekels have been earmarked for each of the three to settle 50 to 60 families in the first stage.”

            What. A. Dimwit.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Wow, YR, you really are pathetic and ignorant aren’t you?

            Look at the top right corner of your silly reference link…

            http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/2FE3897FF3C1445B85256A3F006604BB

            It says October 14 1983. And indeed, in 1983, Israel did establish a settlement named Susyah. Here read about it…

            “The Israeli settlement was established between May and September 1983 on 1,800 dunams of land. It had a population of 737 in 2006.”

            That is the settlement that YOUR link refers to. Not the place where the tent village is.

            Wanna try again?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “It says October 14 1983. And indeed, in 1983, Israel did establish a settlement named Susyah.”

            Oh, please, stop debasing yourself.

            The Israelis “established” Susyah in 1983 by d.i.s.p.o.s.s.e.s.s.i.n.g. the Palestinian villagers of Susya.

            They forced the villagers out by demolishing their village, and then built that Israeli settlement on the land that was “vacated”.

            The Israelis have done this FOUR TIMES since 1983, and every time the pattern has been the same i.e. demolish the structures built by the dispossessed villagers, force them to move, and them move Israeli “settlers” in to take over the land.

            This is simply the latest iteration of that process, and **you** have to pretend that you are inflicted with amnesia.

            Wash, since, and repeat, and every time it is a new experience for you.

            Please, stop insulting both our intelligence.

            Here, a simple quiz for you.

            Q1: How many times has the Palestinian village of Susya been demolished?
            A1: Four times now, and it is scheduled for its fifth demolishment.

            Q2: And how many times has that resulted in the loss of the land on which those structures were located.
            A2: Four times now.

            Q3: And how many times has that dispossession led to Israeli “settlers” moving in to take over that land?
            A3: It will soon be five times that this has happened, since that has been the inevitable result of all four previous examples of land-confiscation.

            Honestly, it isn’t just the criminality of Israel’s actions that gall so much.

            What really galls is the bald-facing denial by apologists who claim that what is happening simply *isn’t* happening, even though you know perfectly well what is happening.

            You know something, Gustav? A moo-cow wakes up every morning and every time it is surprised that the sky is blue and the grass is green.

            You are doing the same: you are itching to see this village demolished, and to you the process is a new, never before seen thing.

            Think about that: Gustav has the mentality of a moo-cow.

            And the worse thing about that is that this is insulting to the bovine.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Part 2 of 2

            YR:Q: Does that make the demolition of these structure illegal?
            A: Yes, it does.”

            No it doesn’t.

            Gustav: “First address the issue of demolition”

            YR:”I just did. You can not divorce the action from its intentions.”

            You mean your assertion of intentions. But even if you would be right about the intentions, you would not necessarily be right about your claim that what the IDF does is illegal.

            We already covered the fact that unauthorized structures may be legally removed by authorities anywhere in the world.

            As for confiscations, that is a separate issue which needs to be dealt on it’s own merit which includes consideration of ALL pertinent facts. For example, since you insist on invoking the hypothetical of confiscation, I will introduce a hypothetical too…

            If an earlier deed turns up which shows that the land was owned by a Jewish family, then the members of that family can insist on taking posession of that land.

            YR:”The PURPOSE of these demolitions is the confiscation of the land on which those structures sit. That land is their private property. The demolitions are therefore an illegal act, precisely because an occupying power cannot confiscate private property.”

            Repetition does not make you right YR. we already covered this. You are a desperate little man to be right. Desperate to the point of laughable in a sad and obsessive sort of a way…

            YR:”Now, so sorry, but You Are Wrong, and you don’t get to be Any Less Wrong but attempting a ludicrous game of reductio ad absurdum.”

            OK, sonny boy, you think that by repeating compulsively that I am wrong, wrong, wrong… it really makes me wrong? Well then, get this into ya…

            YOU ARE WRONG! But I don’t have to repeat myself because I said it all above and to any sane person who reads what I said above, what I said is plain common sense.

            That of course excludes obsessive angry little ideologues like Benny who profess the same religion of hatred of Israel as you do my clownish “friend”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Oh and one more thing YR. from your own link, the bottom of paragraph 242 which you did not bother to quote, what a surprise…

            http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/2FE3897FF3C1445B85256A3F006604BB

            “The Minister for Justice, Mr. Moshe Nissim, emphasized that the establishment of the new settlements was conditional on the approval from the State Attorney that they were being built on State land and not on privately-owned land. ”

            Get it? Israel made an effort not to establish settlements on privatey owned lands…

            Ya didn’t bother mentioning that, did ya YR? Deception anyone?

            You desperately want to be right don’t ya, YR? And you will stoop to any deception to try to appear to be right. So what is your score on honesty?

            A BIG FAT FAIL!!! You sad little man…

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav quotes: “The Minister for Justice, Mr. Moshe Nissim, emphasized that the establishment of the new settlements was conditional on the approval from the State Attorney that they were being built on State land and not on privately-owned land”

            Gustav then claims: “Get it? Israel made an effort not to establish settlements on privatey owned lands”

            Ahem.

            http://www.timesofisrael.com/1881-document-suggests-palestinian-ownership-of-susya/
            “The document”… [i.e. the Ottoman-era Deed]… “was also mentioned in a 1982 report by Pliah Albeck, who was the director of the Civil Department at the State Attorney’s Office, which determined the legal boundaries of West Bank settlements”

            Hmmm, a report dated 1982, you say?

            Which means that the Israeli authorities have known since 1982 that the settlement was built atop property belonging to the Palestinian villagers of Susya.

            Which means – gasp! say it isn’t so! – that the Israelis were deliberately burying (for over 30 years now) an internal report that documented the existence of the very property deeds that they claimed to care So Very Much About.

            Say one thing in public, do the exact opposite in your internal deliberations.

            Isn’t that just an oh-so-Zionist thing to do?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Gustav quotes: “The Minister for Justice, Mr. Moshe Nissim,”

            Indeed I quote him. But you forgot to mention one itzy bitsy tiny detail…

            I used YOUR link, yes the link which you pretended to be proving your assertions…

            …only it didn’t did it?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Is there anyone who has read that last post of Gustav who isn’t thinking: Wow! Gustav really is trying very, very hard to avoid acknowledging that his latest argument (See! See! The Israelis said they were concerned! So It Must Be True!) was a load of old cobblers.

            Israel said in 1982 that it was concerned not to build “settlements” atop Palestinian private property.

            In 1982 Israel also had in its possession an Ottoman-era deed that proved that Susya is Palestinian private property.

            Israel then spent the next 33 years claiming that it could not authorize any Palestinian building applications in Susya because it did not know if that land was Palestinian private property.

            Discuss.

            Hello, Gustav?

            Discuss.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “You mean your assertion of intentions.”

            Dude, here a few very simple questions that I’d like you to answer truthfully.

            I’ll even make it easier by making them multiple-choice

            Q1: When these structures are demolished will the IDF:
            a) Allow those villagers to stay where they are?
            b) Force them to vacate that land?

            Which one, (a) or (b)?

            Q2: If the villagers do get “moved along”, will the land thus vacated:
            a) Remain empty, since the villagers will still own it?
            b) Be claimed by Israeli “settlers” for themselves?

            Which one, (a) or (b)?

            Because I’m telling you right here and now that if you answer (a) to either of those questions then you are telling yourself an untruth.

            And not just “untruthful” but also “utterly ignorant of the history of this area since 1983”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Ya gonna try and clean up the doo doo which ya stepped in, YR?

            Read my last 3 posts.

            LOL.

            Reply to Comment
    3. Ben

      Geez. Where to start. So many layers of deception here.

      “that is a lie Benny.”

      It is absolutely not a lie, Gustav. You are so FOS. You have, for example, left out those many instances where “Jewish-built outposts” have been “earmarked” by the Israeli government not to be removed but to be covertly converted from “unauthorized” to… presto… abbraccadabra… “legalized” status.*

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/israel-unauthorized-settlements_n_3287082.html

      “Several thousand settlers live in unauthorized outposts that Israel has promised to dismantle. The anti-settlement monitoring group Peace Now has been pushing the government to carry out pledges made years ago to evacuate six unauthorized outposts. In its latest response, the government indicated it is now looking into ways to legalize four of the communities: Maaleh Rehavam, Haroeh, Givat Assaf and Mitzpeh Lachish. In the case of Haroeh, for example, it said Israel’s defense minister had ordered officials to explore whether the outpost was built on “state land,” potentially clearing the way for its legalization. Peace Now interpreted the government’s response as a declaration of intentions to legalize the tiny communities, which are home to several dozen settler families. “The government is trying to avoid the enforcement of the law and to legalize the outposts instead of evicting them,” said Hagit Ofran, a Peace Now spokeswoman. She called the move “a slap in the face” to Kerry. She said the Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing on the matter for next week, though it is unclear when there will be a ruling”
      ______
      * Do you even know what is going on right next door to you? Which reminds me. It’s true that a lot of Israelis have no idea what is going on right next door to them—this is what makes Breaking the Silence so important and so justified—but for a long time now I’ve been skeptical that you are actually an Israeli living in Israel—you post at the oddest hours—what would be 2:00-4:00 AM in Israel but, for example, 7:00-9:00 PM in New York. And your English seems to me ordinary American English.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Ben

      “No people in the known history of mankind anywhere, anytime, has treated it’s [occupied subjects] by the same standards that it treats it’s own. Get used to it, Benny dear. We are no different to anyone else in that regard.”

      Oh yes you are. All one has to do to reveal the deception here is to translate the blatant propaganda item, “self declared and practicing enemies” into “occupied subjects.” As I have done. The good ol’ USA, your staunchest ally, with which there is “no daylight,” treated its occupied subjects in Germany and Japan very differently. And after the fiercest war that left 405,399 of its sons dead and 670,846 of its sons wounded. Don’t talk to me about pain and sacrifice. What you unwittingly reveal here, Gustav, at long last, is your real agenda: “We occupy them. They are our subjects. We reserve the right– in contradiction to both international law and ordinary standards of decency that we expect everyone else on Earth to adhere to in relation to us–to treat them as an overlord treats subjects. By a racist standard. They are out of luck. We are gonna take their land.” Intrusive Jewish structures are authorized. Indigenous Arab structures never will be. You said it, Gustav. No way are you gonna apply the same standards to Arabs and Jews. We get it. We should get used to it. Finally you come clean about your real ethic. No different than Jello. No different than Tomer. Pure 21st Century Jewish Supremacism. You’re just sneakier about it and less up front about it than they are.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        GUSTAV:“No people in the known history of mankind anywhere, anytime, has treated it’s [occupied subjects] by the same standards that it treats it’s own. Get used to it, Benny dear. We are no different to anyone else in that regard.”

        BEN:”Oh yes you are. All one has to do to reveal the deception here is to translate the blatant propaganda item, “self declared and practicing enemies” into “occupied subjects.” As I have done. The good ol’ USA, your staunchest ally, with which there is “no daylight,” treated its occupied subjects in Germany and Japan very differently.”

        Differently? Are you sure you wanna go there, Benny? Let’s then shall we?

        First of all, after the war, USA rounded up German and Japanese government and army officials and conducted war crimes trials. A lot of those who were tried, were executed or were given lengthy jail sentences.

        I am not saying they did not deserve it. But we haven’t done any of that even though many Hamas thugs and even members of the PLO are guilty of war crimes against us.

        Moving on… in the initial years after the war, there was virtual starvation to the extent that many German women had to prostitute themselves for food.

        Moving on… parts of German lands were confiscated by the allies and were handed over to Poland and Russia. And yes, it was with the blessing of America.

        Moving on… the ethnic Germans in those lands were expelled and many were killed.

        But you knew all that, Benny. You knew because I proved it to you all before. You are just pretending not to know because even though YOU hate America, you hate Israel even more. Hence your above nonsensical claim.

        Reply to Comment
    5. Gustav

      Ooh aah … YR and Benny panic again, they post a flurry of posts to hide how YR slipped up again.

      He posted this link as proof that Israel intends to confiscate private property…

      http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/2FE3897FF3C1445B85256A3F006604BB

      But instead… he proved the opposite. How?

      1. By forgetting to mention that his document is old and is not referring to the current tent city. So, I am still awaiting your proof YR, LOL.

      2. And even more embarrassingly, YR’s link includes the following paragraph…

      “The Minister for Justice, Mr. Moshe Nissim, emphasized that the establishment of the new settlements was conditional on the approval from the State Attorney that they were being built on State land and not on privately-owned land. ”

      Which is the opposite of what YR claims. How embarrassing for you YR. But you don’t seem to be embarrassed. Is there anything that would embarrass you? I mean, I am quoting from your own link, LOL.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        AGAIN YR…

        We are talking about the current tent village which is mantioned in this thread.

        You asserted that the demolition plan is a prelude to confiscation.

        You even asserted that the IDF in it’s submission to the courts said so…

        Where is your PROOF?!

        Please provide a link to a reputable site which is NOT an anti Israel propaganda site, which confirms your assertion!

        LINK PLEASE!

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          I think it is only fair that I spell out to Gustav the importance of this factoid regarding that Ottoman-era deed: “The document was also mentioned in a 1982 report by Pliah Albeck, who was the director of the Civil Department at the State Attorney’s Office, which determined the legal boundaries of West Bank settlements”.

          What that means is that the IDF is going to be in a bit of trouble explaining itself to the Israel High Court of Justice.

          Think about it…
          Think about it…
          Think about it…

          That report means that the Attorney General was perfectly well-aware in 1982 that the IDF was committing a war crime by demolishing the Palestinian village of Susya in order to confiscate land for an Israeli settlement of the same name.

          But it’s more than that: Israel then spent the next 30 years committing that same injustice upon these same Palestinians time and time again, even though it had always known that this was illegal.

          Which means that those villagers are now entitled not only to claim compensation for their losses, but also to make very substantial claims for damages against an Israel that has been criminally persecuting them for three decades now.

          But it’s even more than that: Gustav should consider that the IHCJ is now aware of:
          a) That Ottoman deed
          b) That 1982 report by the Israel Attorney General.

          The judges are going to demand that the IDF explain why those raaaaaather relevant documents were never tendered before the court, especially as those judges are certain to point out to the IDF that the court has ruled since the early 1980s that the IDF is prohibited from building Israeli settlements on Palestinian private property.

          Gustav: “We are talking about the current tent village which is mantioned in this thread.”

          *chortle*

          This “tent village” is “current” because in 1982 the Palestinian village of Susya was demolished, the residents were forced off their land, and that land was confiscated to make room for an Israeli settlement.

          So those villagers moved into caves near their (former) village, which they owned. And from which they were ejected from in the 1990s in order that Israeli settlers could confiscate the land.

          Of course, that still doesn’t get us to this “current tent village”, because once those villagers were ejected from those caves they set themselves up on their own (note: their own) agricultural land.

          From which they were ejected in 2001, whereupon that agricultural land was confiscated by – yep, you guessed it – Israeli settlers.

          Which all leads us to this “current tent village”, which the IDF wants to demolish for reasons that Gustav insists relates entirely to local government planning regulations.

          Even though – du’oh! – on the four previous times that this has occurred the villagers not only had their dwellings demolished but *also* were forced to Vacate The Premises so that some Israeli carpet-baggers could take over the joint.

          But – goodness gracious me! – who could possibly believe that such a thing will take place this time?

          The very idea is a blood-libel, even though… umm… OK… let’s not mention 1982, or 1990, or 2001…..

          Gustav: all three wise monkeys rolled into one.

          Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        You really ought to check if somebody has utterly debunked what you are about to post before you post it. It’s embarrassing. Yes…right up above there…yes that’s it, silly…where YR says “Ahem…in a 1982 report by Pliah Albeck….”

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          Poor old Benny. Doing what he is best at. Speaking nonsense and asserting things.

          I tell ya what is embarrassing. Your constant fawning and snuggling up to YR. you are like his little puppy, jumping up and down around him and waiting to be petted. I tell ya, if I were you, I would put a paer bag around my head because I would be embarrassed about being Benny.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Poor old Benny. Doing what he is best at. Speaking nonsense and asserting things. ”

            Do I really need to point out that the above is 100% ad-hom?

            Gustav: “I tell ya what is embarrassing. Your constant fawning and snuggling up to YR. you are like his little puppy, jumping up and down around him and waiting to be petted. I tell ya, if I were you, I would put a paer bag around my head because I would be embarrassed about being Benny.”

            And do I really need to point out that the above is also 100% ad-hom?

            I think it is fair to say that we have reached the point – as always – where Gustav has run out of arguments.

            Which is the point – as ever – where Gustav is reduced to the ad-hom attack.

            Apparently that’s all he has left when his cupboard is bare.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            YR:”Do I really need to point out that the above is 100% ad-hom?”

            Ya don’t say, YR. Are you saying that with a straight face? Have you looked at your own posts lately, you hypocrite?

            Now YR if we demolished an ancient Arab village called Susya, maybe you could show us the ruins of the stone houses? Please provide a link to a non Arab propaganda site which does that. It shouldn’t be hard for a man of your calibre , LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Have you looked at your own posts lately, you hypocrite?”

            Ahem. I did point out that your last post was *****100%***** ad-hom.

            As in: nothing *****but**** ad-hom.

            And, yes, I have indeed look back over my own posts, and in them I see that I *****don’t**** indulge in *******100%******** ad-hom.

            Indeed, my posts to you follow a predicable pattern:
            a) I quote your latest bit of idiocy
            b) I point out why your words are idiotic
            c) I then tell you that you are an idiot.

            Not particularly nice, sure, but also not *******100%****** ad-hom.

            Honestly, Gustav, this is just too easy.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Behold, YR at his quibbling best.

            According to him, he is Hallal because he is not engaged in 100% ad hominems, just a tiny bit. What modesty…

            Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          Ben: “silly…where YR says”….

          I’m quite certain that Gustav does not have the wit nor the wisdom to understand how that article demolishes all of his arguments.

          Because this is axiomatic: if the IDF knew in 1982 that the Palestinian villagers owned the land upon which the village of Susya was located then it knew that demolishing that village to order to confiscate that land for a new Israeli settlement was A War Crime.

          But its more than that: the existence of that 1982 report completely invalidates Gustav’s argument that these present-day structures can be demolished because they are “unauthorized”.

          Think about it…
          Think about it…
          Think about it…

          The reason why these structures are “unauthorized” is because the Civil Administration has spent the last three decades refusing to approve any Palestinian building plan anywhere within the boundaries of Susya.

          Q: And the reason given by the Civil Administration for its refusal to approve such plans?
          A: Because the Civil Administration insisted that it was unclear that this village is the private property of those villagers.

          Hellllllloooooooooooooooo.

          Such a “reasoning” can only be the result of a fraudulent assertion i.e. the claim by the Civil Administration that something was “unknown” when, in fact, this had been know – and documented – as long ago as 1982.

          Follow the bouncing ball:
          a) We know that you own this land
          b) We’ll pretend that we are unaware of (a)
          c) We’ll deny you application on the basis of (b)

          Such an abuse of authority is fraudulent.

          It would be criminal in any country that follows a Rule Of Law.
          I daresay it is even criminal in Israel.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Lotsa ‘IFs’, lotsa assertions lotsa claims by YR, zero proofs.

            Now please post a link to a reputable site which says and shows that we demolished an Arab village called Susya which had stone houses rather than make shift structures.

            LINK PLEASE!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Lotsa ‘IFs’,”

            No, not really. The statement “if the IDF knew in 1982 that the Palestinian villagers owned the land” has already be answered in the affirmative.

            We know that, because the IDF itself told Barak Ravid that they are in possession of an Ottoman-era deed and, indeed, that they have been aware of that deed since at least 1982.

            Gustav: “lotsa assertions lotsa claims by YR, zero proofs.”

            Sunshine, the IDF itself has told Barak Ravid that:
            a) It has an Ottoman-era deed that proves Palestinian ownership
            b) The Israel State Attorney documented that deed in 1982.

            You appear to believe that no “ramifications” flow from those two facts.
            Which – considering your very first post in this thread – is deliciously rich irony indeed.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            What a little cheeky little liar you are YR.

            Nowhere did you prove that the Jewish settlement of Susya which was built in 1983, is situated on privately owned Arab land.

            The Ottoman era document only shows that the place which the current tent village is on, is privately owned land.

            And again, nobody is allowed to build structures without permits, even on privately owned lands. Nothing unique about that. We are not the only ones in the world who insist on permits before building structures anywhere.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            He posted this link as proof that Israel intends to confiscate private property…

            http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/2FE3897FF3C1445B85256A3F006604BB

            But instead… he proved the opposite. How?

            1. By forgetting to mention that his document is old and is not referring to the current tent city. So, I am still awaiting your proof YR, LOL.

            2. And even more embarrassingly, YR’s link includes the following paragraph…

            “The Minister for Justice, Mr. Moshe Nissim, emphasized that the establishment of the new settlements was conditional on the approval from the State Attorney that they were being built on State land and not on privately-owned land. ”

            Which is the opposite of what YR claims. How embarrassing for you YR. But you don’t seem to be embarrassed. Is there anything that would embarrass you? I mean, I am quoting from your own link, LOL.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Deja Vu, anyone?

            Gustav quotes this:
            “The Minister for Justice, Mr. Moshe Nissim, emphasized that the establishment of the new settlements was conditional on the approval from the State Attorney that they were being built on State land and not on privately-owned land.”

            Gustav then insists that:
            “Which is the opposite of what YR claims.”

            Dude, it’s not *just* the opposite of what I claim. It is *also* the opposite of what the Israeli State Attorney did.

            We both know that, because I have *already* pointed Gustav to this:
            “The document was also mentioned in a 1982 report by Pliah Albeck, who was the director of the Civil Department at the State Attorney’s Office, which determined the legal boundaries of West Bank settlements”

            So we have here a situation where the Israel State Attorney does the complete opposite to what the Israel State Attorney claimed it was doing.

            How odd.

            How very odd indeed.

            Gustav, baby, look at what they *do*, don’t listen to what they *say*.

            They are Zionists, ergo, what they *say* they are doing is not going to be at all the same as what they are doing.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            YR:”What was done in the 9th century CE was done in…. the 9th century CE, which means that the lawfulness (or otherwise) of that “doing” was contingent upon what was legal back in…. the 9th century CE.

            By way of very marked contrast what is being done now is being done in…. the 21st century, and therefore its lawfulness (or otherwise) is contingent upon what is legal in…. the hear and now.”

            Funny that. YR is always so sanguie about the laws which Arabs have to observe.

            Ah… he says… that was the 9th century but this is now.

            Yet he forgets to mention that today’s Arabs, wherever they are in control, still behave as if we are still in the 9th century. Including when it comes to committing terror acts against the Jews and other infidels.

            But YR and his friends always perk up and tell Israel how it HAS to conduct it’s affairs in lands which it controls and over which it has full responsibility for planning and construction.

            Even though Israel has it’s own courts which have demonstrated remarkable lack of bias by ruling not always in favor of the home boys (Israel itself). Nevertheless, haters such as YR and Benny who hardly sleep, they spend so much time looking at what we are up to, feel it necessary to preach to us and pretend that they know best.

            They never let up…

            When Israeli courts rule against the Israeli government, showing true separation between politics and law, they crow and say “see? We told you how eeevil Israel is”. When Israeli courts uphold Israeli government decisions, the claim bias and hometime decisions…

            Meanwhile, they give stuff all about how Arabs behave be it here in Israel-Palestine or elsewhere in the Arab world.

            They are true haters. And all they achieve is a backlash of hatred from us and intransigence from the Arabs. They foster a climate of intolerance instead of an inclination to solve problems. But hey, maybe that’s exactly what they want? Maybe this is just a blood sport for them and they barrack mindlessly for their perceived underdog. A big game for them. They probably hope that thisconflict should last forever just so they can be entertained and enjoy their own antics while standing on their own little soap-boxes, sad little boring people.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Is there anyone who has read that last post of Gustav who isn’t thinking: Wow! Gustav really is trying very, very hard to avoid acknowledging that his latest argument (See! See! The Israelis said they were concerned! So It Must Be True!) was a load of old cobblers.

            Israel said in 1982 that it was concerned not to build “settlements” atop Palestinian private property.

            In 1982 Israel also had in its possession an Ottoman-era deed that proved that Susya is Palestinian private property.

            Israel then spent the next 33 years claiming that it could not authorize any Palestinian building applications in Susya because it did not know if that land was Palestinian private property.

            Discuss.

            Hello, Gustav?

            Discuss.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            YR:”Discuss Gustav

            Discuss”

            I already did, sunshine. I can’t help that you are not observant. Look back a few posts ago. Here it is again, just for ittle old you…
            ——–

            What a little cheeky little liar you are YR.

            Nowhere did you prove that the Jewish settlement of Susya which was built in 1983, is situated on privately owned Arab land.

            The Ottoman era document only shows that the place which the current tent village is on, is privately owned land.

            And again, nobody is allowed to build structures without permits, even on privately owned lands. Nothing unique about that. We are not the only ones in the world who insist on permits before building structures anywhere.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            YR:”They are Zionists, ergo, what they *say* they are doing is not going to be at all the same as what they are doing.”

            This from the mouth of a liar who denies his own spoken word. Not only is he a hater, but he is a liar too.
            ————–
            Would one buy a used car from this man who calls himself by the dubious name of [Yeah Right]?

            …before one is tempted to say ‘yes’, looky here on the following thread. He outs himself as a man who doesn’t even own up to words which he himself uttered…

            http://972mag.com/occupation-is-the-problem-not-the-people-talking-about-it/107897/

            [Yeah Right]:”I will now point out to you that I have never once used the word “legit” in this oh-so-tedious thread.”

            Oh dear. Now he is in denial.

            So tell me, sunshine, who posted the following words earlier on this thread, in response to Pedro’s post?….

            [Yeah Right]:”Because – du’oh! – the acquisition of territory by war was perfectly legit Way Back Then…”

            Yep, it was little old you, you little rascal. Don’t be bashful… Own up for once in your miserable life!!

            Reply to Comment
    6. Ben

      In fact, in 1986, three years after the Israeli settlers barged into Susya, the Palestinian village’s land was expropriated by the Israelis state for “public use” and the location was designated as an archeological site. The fact that the Israeli state used expropriation procedures is convergent evidence proving that the state knew (evidently, since 1982, at least (see Pliah Albeck, Ottoman deed, above)) and recognized that this land was privately owned. The process of expropriation occurs precisely when a public agency takes private property for a purpose deemed to be in the public interest. Somebody has a LOT of explaining to do.

      The villagers of Susya have been subject to wave after wave of expulsion and settler and IDF brutality: Caves have been blown up, wells blocked, fields vandalized, animals killed, villagers shot and killed, villagers arrested and beaten. These are all crimes, from start to finish. These crimes, by the Israeli state, in which its ‘settlers’ and soldiers and civil administrators and judges and civilian leadership are all implicated, are part of a larger aim: to expel the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants of Area C to prepare for annexation. Noam Sheizaf knows the real deal: bulldozing the Israeli High Court as the MK Moti Yogev of Jewish Home publicly advocated (why hasn’t Yogev been arrested and charged with sedition?) would only hasten the demise of the occupation because the High Court is the very cornerstone of the occupation.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        This is what Haaretz wrote about the Ottoman era document…

        “Civil Administration report obtained by Haaretz cites Ottoman deed, may halt planned demolitions in West Bank village of Sussia.
        By Barak Ravid and Chaim Levinson, Ha’aretz
        July 26, 2015
        Sussia, the Palestinian village in which structures are slated for demolition, sits on private Palestinian land owned by local people, according to a document of the Defence Ministry’s Civil Administration obtained by Haaretz.”

        Soooooooo YR, please show us where did you conjure up your latest fib about where the Jewish settlement of Susyah is situated?

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          …read it again, Benny. All the other areas which you are talking about, other than the current location of the tent village are not proven to be privately owned lands.

          …and as we said before, the only illegal thing which was committed there, was the erection of the tent village without permit.

          See, Benny? I can be as cold as legalistic as YR was when I mentioned the ancient Jews who used to live in Susya around the time of the Arab Muslim invasion and who subsequently disappeared from there. Your bosom budy and Pal, YR, was singularily unmoved by that. He virtually said “so what?” … and muttered something about what may or may not have been legal then…

          Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Pliah Albeck had the village’s land expropriated after the villagers were expelled. Even Plia Albeck, known for declaring Palestinian land as State land, acknowledged that the Susya the villagers were expelled from in 1986 was a Palestinian village. She, who had seen that Ottoman deed, knew that. She therefore had Susya expropriated, using the pretext of the ancient synagogue. I’m not interested in you or what you can be. You flat out lost the legal argument many posts ago and now are hanging on by the obfuscatory nudnik’s thread of “I demand you prove exactly what 3000 dunams the Ottoman deed itself covers, and if you can’t prove that on the spot then you are a ‘liar’ and I win (something, who knows what?)”–which is complete nonsense, rudely expressed, but what else is new?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I have not lost the legal argument Benny, just because YOU claim that I did.

            Now read what Haaretz says again, it talks only about the area which the tent village is on.

            Oh and there are other legal arguments too which people like you and your buddy consistently ignore.

            The presence of an ancient Jewish village in this area is not irrelevant. And the fact that it disappeared around the time of the Arab Muslim invasion is not irrelevant either.

            The whole picture needs to be looked at. Not only the bits that are of interest to you lot.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Unlike YR, I am not a proponent of the “that was then but this is now” school of thought…

            …but just to show YR where his game can lead to, I too will pretend to play his game…

            So, if we too play his game, we too can say that Ottoman era deeds which may have been valid 150 years ago, have currency no longer. Why? Because “that was then and this is now”.

            On balance though, I would rather not play that game. But my condition is that no one should. And therefore, our claims for this land, based on real history and archaeology, should play a part too. And if there would be good will instead of hystrionics and supremacism, things could be resolved to both sides satisfaction.

            …otherwise? …otherwise, we have what we have now…hatred, agrievement, supremacism and injustice. Pick your choice…

            Reply to Comment
    7. Click here to load previous comments