Monday, September 16, 2013

Homesh No Longer a Jewish Home

Reported then:-

The state intends to nullify the original 1978 military seizure order for the land of the former Homesh settlement, a move that would return the property to its former Palestinian owners.

This precedent-setting ruling legally closes the door on the ability of settlers to rebuild the Homesh settlement...





And now:

Palestinians can farm the land that was the site of the former Homesh settlement in Samaria, according to a ruling by the Attorney General’s office issued last week but released to the media only on Sunday.

The ruling is the final legal nail in the coffin for the battle waged by right-wing activists and politicians to resettle Homesh, one of four West Bank settlements evacuated as part of the 2005 disengagement plan....



On September 10, the head of the IDF Security and Criminal Desk, Major Udi Sagi, sent a letter on behalf of Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein...Sagi explained that Homesh has been removed from the list of settlements, and as such the order, which prohibited Palestinian access without IDF permission, no longer applied to that hilltop.

...MK Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) said it was a discriminatory act that had significance with respect to the overall issue of handing over land to Palestinians that had been under Israeli ownership.

...Avi Ro’eh, who heads the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, said it was a serious and illogical step. Israel should not give up strategic property, especially in a week that marks the 20th anniversary of the Oslo Accords, Ro’eh said. After years of concessions and withdrawals, Israel’s security situation has only gotten worse, he added.

“I want to remind the defense minister of his words from four years ago, that we need to return to Homesh and that the disengagement was a mistake. The defense minister should correct this mistake by renewing the settlement in Homesh,” Ro’eh stated.

^

5 comments:

JimB said...

Only a good thing for those working some equity in the process of establishing a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the disputed territories.

The right of Israel to exist in peace among its neighbors does not give the right wing settlers full license to expropriate land without due process and consideration of competing land claims. Such actions only justify actions by the extremists on the other side.

YMedad said...

Jim -

before we have a right to exist in peace, we have a right to exist. They who deny that and attempt to eradicate the Jewish state do not have a tight to leave in peace or to benefit from their terror, aggression and disinventivity regarding Jewish national ethos. In a conflict which is not territorial but existential, as have been proven for over 9 decades, the other side's rights are severely hampered by their own actions and thinking.

YMedad said...

Sorry for the (Freudian?) slip:

'live in peace' that should be

Anonymous said...

http://khabarsouthasia.com/en_GB/articles/apwi/articles/features/2013/09/16/feature-06


government of Peoples Republic of Bangladesh puts its money where its mouth is - does what it needs to do in order to show the violent jihadi minority that jihad-ism WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

A jihadi leader was recently handed a DEATH SENTENCE in a Dhaka courtroom.


note the official name of the country: ==not== "Islamic Republic of", but rather: "Peoples Republic of"

Candidate for next Muslim country to establish (Qatar style) low-level open-secret economic relations with Israel?

Bangladesh does NOT have "zero" tractable exports. There is tea, there is betel-nuts, there is jute, there are RTW garments.

I claim the most likely success path would involve a barter deal, not cash payments. Government-to-government barter deals are a sort nuisance from a bureaucratic point of view; the nuisance may be outweighed by the political benefots

Samuel Dinkels said...

The concept of due process from the 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution applied to a situation like this implies a standard of moral perfection to which no nation has ever been forced to adhere, including the U.S. itself. Witness the appropriation of land from Native Americans, the conquest of Mexican territories, the Louisiana Purchase (Who gave France the right to possess the land?) and the "purchase" of Alaska from Russia (Who gave them ownership?), just to mention a few.

Let us apply the same standard to all the European and Asian nations, to Russia and to China. And let us apply the same standard of due process to the Jews trying to live in their historic homeland of four thousand years. Do we apply due process to Jordan when it seized Jerusalem and to Judea and Samaria in 1948?
The accidental possession by the Arabs of territories that they conquered in 1948 does NOT give them ownership.

And a dose of reality is in order here: The Arabs who call themselves Palestinian are already in possession of 80% of "Palestine," constituting lands east of the Jordan River. Israel is one of the tiniest countries on earth. Israel is not seizing vast territories. The Arabs tried to annihilate Israel many times, and in so doing they lost any claim they may have made in the perfect court of justice to which only Israel must subscribe. They lost those wars, and so the Jewish People have the right to assert their rights over their ancient and historic homeland. The Jewish People have a right to take possession of their land. The Arabs who call themselves Palestinians have a territory 4 times the size of Israel on the east side of the Jordan River. It is still a sparsely populated country in spite of their huge birth rate. And Israel is more than willing to make peace with this nation.