"Gaza Island"

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

From your link:

"The Israeli Land Authority claims that the land is owned by it."

According to Meron Rappoport reporting in today’s Haaretz on line here in Hebrew, and here in English, an appeal was presented two weeks ago to the High Court against the Israel Land Authority (ILA) for stripping the Palestinian owners of thirty dunams of land in East Jerusalem, and leasing it “for agricultural purposes” to Ateret Kohanim, the extremist settler’s organization that seizes control of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem for Jewish settlement. The lease was effected without a tender; Ateret Kohanim has no experience in agriculture. According to the appeal, the clerk in the ILA acted in conjunction with Ateret Kohanim in order to block the plans of the owners, the Arab Hotels Company, to begin the construction of a hotel complex on the area.

http://www.jeremiahhaber.com/2007/08/israel-racism-watch-how-israel-land.html

[mawilson 2,133]

An appeal, imagine that. Kangaroos would never allow that sort of thing.

[Golden Gate 530]

An appeal, imagine that. Kangaroos would never allow that sort of thing.

But why should it have to go to that point anyway?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

But why should it have to go to that point anyway?

Perhaps because the Israel Land Authority "owns" 93% of the land in Israel.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[mawilson 2,133]

But why should it have to go to that point anyway?

Hey, I'm all for property rights. If the ILA doesn't own the land, as they claim,

it should be returned to the legal owners.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Hey, I'm all for property rights. If the ILA doesn't own the land, as they claim,

it should be returned to the legal owners.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem. Once a settlement has been built, then what? If the IDF "needs" the land for strategic purposes, then what? Israel would no longer exist if the land was returned to the rightful owners.

Edited July 14, 2011 by IR5FORMUMSIE

[mawilson 2,133]

Israel would no longer exist if the land was returned to the rightful owners.

Parts of it would not exist.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Parts of it would not exist.

Most, if not all of it.

[mawilson 2,133]

Most, if not all of it.

Not really - no more than an Indian tribe can claim Manhattan.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

It's a problem to be sure, but you could say the same things about African Americans or other minorities in the US - it doesn't make this country any less of a democracy.

That's all you and at least 4 other apologists got from that article?

Sad, indeed.

You didn't read the article, did you?

No, he didn't. If he did, he'd probably make more sense.

[Golden Gate 530]

Not really - no more than an Indian tribe can claim Manhattan.

Sure, it seems that could be the rationalization, if time keeps passing by without addressing the pressing issues that exist now. I mean, if we already took your land, how can you claim it back? We're here now! Isn't that the rationalization that the western world always uses to justify their existence here? People have conquered each other throughout history...so just deal with it! Kind of the way bullies act.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Golden Gate

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Not necessarily, but at least there's some sort of due process.

A court hears a case and makes a decision, whether we agree with it or not.

Sorry, Ma. No matter how much a$$ you show, it's still an a$$. Injustice isn't the same as justice.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Most, if not all of it.

I think that depends on how you look at it. Early arrivals paid cash to wealthy land owners and then evicted those living on the lands.

I guess the area in the 20's and 30's was still fairly feudal in its economic make up? Thats the impression I've gotten from reading about the area.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Sousuke

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Not really - no more than an Indian tribe can claim Manhattan.

But you can always scream Manifest Destiny 2,000+ years after the fact? We are talking about an event that happened less than 100 years ago, where well-documented records still exist, your comparison is not valid. Now, if you are going to argue that we can work out something along the lines of reconciliation and redress, then I'm down with that.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

I think that depends on how you look at it. Early arrivals paid cash to wealthy land owners and then evicted those living on the lands.

I guess the area in the 20's and 30's was still fairly feudal in its economic make up? Thats the impression I've gotten from reading about the area.

The first and second waves of immigrants (primarily Russian Jews who arrived in the 18th and 19th Centuries) were under the Ottomans who welcomed them as friends as did the locals.

Edited July 14, 2011 by IR5FORMUMSIE