T. Belman. Its about time the government got involved. But why is COGAT complaining? Who gave them authority in the first place to plan Arab communities in Area C. This is a political decision and COGAT should just accept their orders. Is COGAT obeying the order?
I think these Bedouin live in Area C and therefore Israel has a responsibility to build housing for both them and Jews living there. But there is a freeze on construction for Jews. It would appear from this order that the committee is saying that the freeze should also apply to the Bedouin. I agree with that.
Ultimately when the freeze is lifted, it is in Israel’s interest to plan where these Bedouin should be housed and what density there should be. At present the EU builds the housing in politically sensitive areas and spreads them out so more land is affected.
The IDF hands are tied when it comes to tacking illegal Beduin construction in Area C of the West Bank because it has been ordered to freeze building plans for those herding communities, Civil Administration deputy head Col. Uri Mendez said Tuesday.
“The upper political echelon has directed us not to advance these plans,” Mendez told the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee sub-group on Judea and Samaria, in the midst of an overall presentation on illegal construction in Area C of the West Bank. The FADC sub-group has been particularly concerned about illegal Palestinian and Beduin construction in Area C.
Right-wing politicians, even those who oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, fear such illegal construction is an attempt by the Palestinian Authority to claim sections of Area C for its future state that otherwise would have been drawn into Israel’s final borders in any final status agreement for a two-state solution.
They are pressuring the IDF to demolish such building.
Tuesday morning’s hearing was the latest political attempt to highlight the problem of illegal construction.
Israel, in turn, is under pressure from the international community, including the European Union and the United States to approve more housing plans for the Palestinians in Area C of the West Bank, which is under the Israel’s military and civilian control.
They, along with Left-wing groups, have argued that Palestinians and Beduin build illegally because they lack master plans for their communities that would allow for legal construction.
Mendez told the committee that the Civil Administration is in the midst of developing nine master plans to provide the Beduin in Area C with permanent homes, to replace the modular ones they now have.
However, petitions have been filed to the High Court of Justice against these plans, Mendez said. On top of that, he said, the upper political echelon has ordered his office to halt work on those master plans.
The HCJ has stated that, in many cases, the modular illegal Beduin construction can’t be taken down until the Civil Administration can offer these communities alternative housing, Mendez stated.
But to do that, its Higher Planning Council must be able to approve the plans, Mendez said.
Former Bayit Yehudi parliamentarian Orit Struck didn’t accept Mendez’s claim that the government was at fault, and instead blamed Maj.-Gen. Yoav Mordechai, head of COGAT, the coordinator of government activities in the territories, who she charged was implementing his own policies and disregarding those of the government.
“He is running a state within a state,” Struck said.
To which Labor MK Hilik Bar shot back: “Those are very serious accusations,” and Struck responded: “Yes, they are.”
Mendez also provided the committee with data about illegal Palestinian and settler building in Area C, saying that, in the last decade, 24 masters plans have been approved for Palestinian construction and 77 for Israeli building.
For all of 2015 and half of 2016, the rate of illegal construction was higher among Palestinians than Israelis, he said.
The Civil Administration identified 1,994 instances of illegal construction of which 1,398 was in the Palestinian sector and 596 in the Israeli sector, Mendez said.
The bulk of the illegal Palestinian construction, 1,058 instances, was on their private property, he said, while an additional 145 instances of construction were on state land; 143 on survey land; and 21 in IDF Firing Zones.
With respect to the 596 instances of illegal settler building, 174 of those structures were on private Palestinian property, 317 were on state land and 105 on survey land.
The Civil Administration demolished 43 percent of all illegal construction, taking down 858 structures, of which 600 belonged to Palestinians and 258 belonged to settlers.
Taking a broader view, he estimated that 1,100 Palestinian structures were constructed annually in the West Bank of which 41%, or 450 structures, were taken down in any given year.
At no point did Mendez quantify if the building he had referred to was permanent or modular construction; most of the buildings the IDF removes both in settlers outposts and Palestinian and Beduin herding communities is modular.
MK Motti Yogev (Bayit Yehudi) who heads the FADC subgroup, described the phenomenon of such building, particularly those structures given to the Palestinians from the international community, as “terrorist construction disguised as humanitarian aid.”
The European Union, in particular, has been public about its decision to provide the Beduin with modular homes, even if they are illegally constructed, because it sees itself as giving shelter to the homeless, a move it says is allowed under international law.
Yogev charged at the subgroup meeting, however, that “foreign countries are doing what they want here.”
MK Bezalel Smotrich (Bayit Yehudi), meanwhile, said the Civil Administration’s enforcement actions against illegal Palestinian construction were a “complete failure,” and said there is a huge gap between the figures that are presented here and what is actually happening on the ground.
Some of this data “is false,” he charged.
Meanwhile, Yariv Aharoni of the Jerusalem Periphery Forum said he felt the Civil Administration was dismissive of information he had provided it with regard to illegal Palestinian construction.
“It’s because of you that the Palestinian Authority is building a terrorist state under our noses,” he said.
Separately, Johannes Hahn, commissioner for European Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, visited the West Bank on Tuesday, and together with PA officials, inaugurated a new EU-funded road at Khirbat Um al Lahem in Area C near Jerusalem.
@ CuriousAmerican:
The Arabs can build as much as they want on Arab soil. That’s a no brainer.
Sifting thru all this nonsense kind of makes me smile. I realize more than ever why Hashem found it necessary for us to have our own homeland.
This I know personally – as an elder friend of mine, now deceased, was an ex-British soldier who had served in the Mandate in 1947, who was decidedly pro-Arab. He held the Arabs in contempt but at least they were not shooting at him. But remember, he had to go to the King David Hotel two weeks after the attack.
However, as badly as you feel the British denied Jewish construction, Israel today inhibits Arab construction. Irony!
Don’t you think?! 🙂
For this reason, I can understand why the Irgun and Lehi went after the British. I do NOT consider the attack on the King David Hotel a terrorist act, but a guerrilla act, as the Hotel was a legitimate military target.
But the Irgun and Lehi also went after civilians as well. That was terroristic.
Still I understand your view.
This is where Ted and I bitterly disagree. San Remo was flawed.
Chaim Weizmann pointed this out to the British and asked for a stronger statement. The British would not deliver it to Weizmann. Instead, San Remo committed the British to NOT only help Jews, but to protect Arab interests as well. It did not commit to a Jewish nation, but only the ambigious “homeland,” which could have been construed as a Jewish autonomous zone in a greater Arab nation.
The British had to be ambiguous, otherwise the Arabs would have gone on the warpath earlier. Weizmann saw the problem, but he could not get it corrected.
The British would not budge. They were afraid of an immediate Arab revolt if Weizmann’s wording was used.
Ted will refute this, but this is a very strong disagreement between him and I. San Remo was worded ambiguously ON PURPOSE.
Balfour admitted that he was acting deceptively and he knew it.
The British lied to you; they lied to the Arabs. Hence the problem you have today. You feel the British lied to, and used, the Jewish people. The British did. They also lied to, and used, the Arabs.
Such an legal instrument, admittedly issued in fraud, by its authors, can easily be challenged on its face. Ted and I will disagree on this.
However, the mistake is assuming that Israel even needs International Law, in the first place, for its justification.
Islam is not the only issue behind this mess. Though Islam fuels it.
You bring up the point that the British kept Jews out of Palestine during the Shoah.
But one Palestinian leader wrote to Roosevelt, that if he wanted to help Jews, America could have opened its doors. Why should local Arabs pay for Germany’s sins?
In theory, the Arab was right. America could have absorbed 2-3 million Jews without changing its national character or committing national suicide. Palestine could not. America would still be America with 3 million more Jews. Probably a better place.
Palestine as a majority Arab area would have ceased. One could not expect the locals to commit political suicide.
I think the White Paper was immoral … and should never have been issued; but San Remo had escape clauses – and the British are immoral.
Jabotinsky understood this.
The issue is that many, who understand Israelis’ love of the land, fail to appreciate that the Arabs equally love the land.
Jabotinsky did not fail to understand the Arab.
Neither side wanted to share the land.
Zionists say they wanted to share the land. NO! They wanted to split the land.
Sharing the land would have meant a federated one-State, not a Jewish state.
Ze’ev Jabotinsky understood this dilemma, and so insisted on a Jewish state, which he knew that no self-respecting Arab would ever accept. He honestly advocated blind force, an Iron Wall.
Jabotinsky said sharing the land was out of the question, for he would not trust Jews being safe as a minority under Arab rule.
So sharing the land was not what was intended; and I dislike it when Israel historians say they only wanted to share the land. Jabotinsky was more honest.
I am not even saying sharing the land with Arab rule was desirable. Frankly, it would have been insane.
To that end, there was no way that Israel could have been resurrected without infringing on the rights of the local Arabs.
Jabotinsky understood this.
Hence the continued fighting … even to this day.
The British knew what was coming, and so deceptively worded San Remo, which spoke of a Jewish homeland, not a Jewish state or nation. Weizmann was furious at this duplicity.
Quietly, in secret, the British elite assured Weizmann that Britain really intended a Jewish state, but could not state it openly.
In the end, when push came to shove, no one expected the ferocity of Arab resistance during the 1936-39 revolt. Britain anticipated a war with Germany and did want want the Mosul to Haifa oil line interrupted by Arab irregulars. Something like one-quarter of all oil to Britain came through Haifa. This was not a minor issue. The oil line had been attacked during the revolt.
To keep the Arabs quiet, the British issued the MacDonald White Paper of 1939, which, though the Mufti rejected it, other Arab leaders accepted, officially, in 1940, after the Mufti had fled – thus giving the White Paper a degree of validity and legal force.
By 1940, the White Paper had purchased quiet for the British, but at a frightful cost to the Jews.
But the Irgun in fury, against the White Paper, went after civilians
The MacDonald White Paper brought quiet. Though the Mufti tried by radio, he could not spark a second Arab revolt during the war. Why would the Palestinians revolt? Britain had conceded the Arab state they insisted on, and signed an agreement in 1940. They thought they had won!
The fact is that British duplicity was used against both sides.
Churchill lied to the Arabs when he promised them …
He was promising the exact opposite quietly to Weizmann.
FOR THESE REASONS I POLITELY DISAGREE WITH TED ON THE LEGALITY OF SAN REMO
A) I have no problem with Israel.
B) I do not ask Israel to divide Jerusalem or give up the Golan.
C) I do not ask Israel to divide the land at all.
But I strongly believe that Israel must not, and cannot, draw its legitimacy from a very flawed San Remo document, issued deceptively and fraudulently, and admitted to by its author.
Jay Shapiro on Israel National Radio, avoids the problem, and has touched upon Enlightenment theories of self-government as one justification for Israel, and denying Arab nationalism. Politically incorrect, it avoids San Remo and cuts to the essence of Western philosophy on self-government. To wit: Savages are not fit to rule. Politically a nightmare, but as Shapiro pointed out, Mills, Locke, and Jefferson never intended self-rule for those incapable of it.
One could use history, Biblical history, archaeology etc. to defend Israel. One could use Locke or Jefferson.
But San Remo was purposefully deceptive.
The Jews feel betrayed by San Remo. They were.
The Arabs feel betrayed by San Remo. They were.
Hence the violence of the resistance. Admit it, both sides used terrorism. The Irgun were not nice guys. Throwing bombs in Souks is not clean warfare. Count Bernadotte did not deserve to be killed.
But Jewish terrorism – and some of it was terrorism – was a whole lot more rational and measured than the Arab cut and slash variety.
In the end, there is an old saying. It may even be Jewish in origin.
You will attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Easing up on permits may win you some Arab friends. If not friends, it may quiet some who feel a need to fight.
After that, paying whoever is willing to leave, is another option.
If you feel my analysis is anti-semitic, then you are wrong. But some here accuse anyone of a non-Bayit Yehudi line of being anti-Semitic.
If that is your tone, I cannot dissaude you, and it is impossible to try.
Ted looks at San Remo from a lawyer’s point of view. I look at it from a historical point of view. We will never agree on it, either.
No disrespect is intended to Ted, but we will not agree.
Some Brits helped the Jews pre State. Many helped the Arabs.
I had a very good friend who lived through the pre state days and he told me how the Brits kept Jews from building or tried to but did not succeed in some cases. Many Jews died because the Brits did not allow Jewish immigration into pre State Israel during the Holocaust. Friends like that are not really friends are they.
I think the MacDonald White Paper of 1939 was a horrible crime.
However, I think Joan Peters overestimated the amount of Arab immigration into the Holy Land. A lot of the Arab population increase can be explained by high birth rates.
I have no love of the English. I think the English were tyrants who divided India wrongly (Pakistan should have remained under Indian control), wanted to divide the USA (by supporting the Confederacy), tried to divide Argentina in 1845 (until the Argentines shot up their fleet), stole the Falklands, divided Ireland wrongly, etc.
The English are masters of divide and conquer.
However, it cannot be denied that they gave the Yishuv protection. Their record in the Holy Land is not black and white. There is a lot of gray in it.
CuriousAmerican Said:
That was a rouse to keep Jewish immigration restricted. Even before the further restrictions in the 1939 White Paper, Jewish immigration was severely limited. But Arab immigration continued unabated.
The restriction of immigration was after the MacDonald White Paper of 1939, which was after the 17 years limit I mentioned.
Prior to that it was officially limited by the absorptive capacity of the area, which allowed for a massive influx of Jews in the 1930’s. The number of Jews rapidly doubled.
No one is saying the British were not tyrants, but they did give the Jews cover to start building the Yishuv.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Not true. They favoured the Arabs constantly. They prevented us from getting or carrying weapons and they prevented our self defense. The Brits who agreed to the Balfour Declaration were Zionists but the Br Civil Administration was very antisemetic.
They the put down the revolt in order to protect their position and not the Mandate per se. They also restricted Jewish immigration before during and after WWII
You are a make-work project.. Don’t waste my time by saying incorrect things.
The Brits have been tyrants in history; but you needed them to keep the Arabs at bay for you. Without the Brits, the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939 would have succeeded.
For the first 17 years of the mandate, they were on your side. Now, I admit the British can be tyrants … but you needed them at one point.
jewish settlement in the jewish homeland of YS cannot be illegal.. it is the govs obligation derived from the LON mandate, as the current administrator of the land, to immigrate jews and facilate jewish settlement. The GOI is illegally obstructing the prime directive of the mandate and the prime international legal reason for the creation of the modern state of Israel. Israel is no less obligated than was britain and jordan to immigrate jews and settle jews. the fact that all 3 have illegally obstructed Jewish settlement gives cause for an affirmative action program of massive and quick jewish settlement in order to mitigate and redress the damages of the past obstruction.
As for the illegal euro and leftist israei blg these are criminal offenses which should result in administrative detention, jail and deportation with diplomatic personel being declared persona non grata.
The important party to build for is the Jews. The others are secondary or off the list entirely… there should be no arab muslim bldg in area C just as there is no jewish bldg in the PA and gaza.
Funny one semi knowledgeable Christian believes he has the right to tell Jews what they should or should not do in the land of Israel and the State of Israel. He judges us and moralizes for us.
Actually there is more than one (Obama, Hillary and whole bunch of EU assholes).
Let them all talk we should just move on and build our homes. The Brits slowed us down pre-State of Israel. The others in the west have slowed us down but we do need to move forward. Build, Build and Build.
I never said your motives were nefarious. I have no problem with a united Israel. However, some of your methods …. are as open to question as those of any nation.
I have always had respect for Israel’s historical claim to the land. What I differed with was the official history, and justification from San Remo.
Israel can used history, archeology, anthropology, and the Bible (even as a historical only text) to make a better claim than San Remo, which is flawed.
Actually I have no problems with Joshua’s war.
Islam was always evil, but not always the enemy of Israel. In 711 AD, Jews in Spain helped invading Muslims conquer Spain. In 711 AD, the Jewish community preferred an alliance with Islam to counter Catholicism.
I am not sure if the final enemy will be Islam. It may be. A case has been made by Evangelicals that the final enemy of Israel may be a heretical Euro-Catholicism. I am not sure where I stand on that.
I do not like your tone. I am not of the enemy. I never asked Israel to divide the land. If you would read THE IRON WALL by Jabotinsky, he decries the deceptive methods used by left wing Zionism. Unfortunately, they wrote the history. I agree with Jabotinsky.
Where Ted and I strongly disagree is over the interpretation of San Remo. I am not opposed to Israel.
@ Ted Belman:
CA is a one trick pony but at least he “understands” our nefarious motives and purpose. LOL
@ CuriousAmerican:
You are very tiresome. You are a mouth piece for the Palestinians and our resident moralizer.
You often point out a caveat from San Remo … “in Palestine without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”as though we aren’t default. We aren’t and even if we were, we are a sovereign nation and can do what we want. The Arab Israelis have full “civil and religious rights” certainly no less that what they had in the Ottoman Empire or currently that Arabs have in neighboring Arab countries.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Until Israel annexes J&S, the “state land” is held in trust, and cannot be used to build Jewish settlements,
This is really a stretch and a distortion. You don’t mention who the land is held in trust for. The Palestine Mandate required the Trustee to hold it on trust for the Jews. The Arabs have no beneficial owner ship to these lands. Israel has every right to build there and the HIgh Court agrees.
Finally the matter of whose land it is, is res judicata. Stop re-litigating.
I am going to put you under moderation. I am tired of you repeating Arab talking points. I am tired of refuting them. I am tired of you moralizing or reminding us of our moral or legal obligation.
In short, you are a pain in the ass.
CuriousAntiAmerican: I submit that in the future you will have more respect for Israel and for the “Israeli position”. You may not believe that Joshua waged a justified war, but Israel has been at war with an enemy that the whole world is finally waking up to. Maybe even you, unless of course you are one of the enemy, will realize this when the civil war begins in earnest in the previously USA.
Come on Ted, this guy is not serious.
@ CuriousAmerican:
You ignored my point, namely why should we let the Bedouin build in C if the Jews can’t.
Secondly, no-one can build indiscriminately anywhere in the civilized world. All land must be zoned and all plans for subdividing the land or building on it must be approved everywhere. Of course if the Bedouin apply for building permits in land not planned, they should expect to be refused.
I have a question here.
I know that OSLO places permits under Israeli control.
But that does not forbid Israel from issuing permits to Arabs in area C.
According to the Guardian, 94% of permit applications in Area C are rejected.
In light of Oslo, where it was initially imagined that a lot of Area C would revert to Arab rule, how does Israel defend this?
I can hate Islam – and I do – but find this disturbing still.
If one rejects Oslo, and expects Israel to annex J&S, or even only to annex Area C, then this looks like a bureaucratic plan to transfer Arabs to A&B.
WHAT IS THE LOGIC HERE?
If the idea is to de-Arabize area C before annexing it, why not just admit it?
If the idea is to concentrate Arabs in area A, and possibly B, …
how will Israel expect such a high population density in such a small area – which will has no control over its borders, immigration, population registry, mineral rights, export and import, voting franchise in the government which controls its borders, etc., to remain quiesscent.
Rightly or wrongly, it has the appearance that you want to make life so miserable for them that they will leave, so you can claim they left “voluntarily.”
I understand that you want your patrimony, and a dimunition of Islamic barbarism but confining them to A (even permits in B are controlled by Israel) is to confine them to reservations at best, or large outdoor prisons.
If you do not see the irony in this, then there is no point in explaning it.
I suspect that many here want the permit approval rate for Arabs to drop to 0%.
Maybe that is the only safe option left, but i suspect it was Israel’s plan from day one even while it was officially declaring for a “two-state solution.”
Both sides want the whole area, and both sides claim they want a two state solution, when in reality, both sides would love to expel the other side.
I would respect the Israeli position more if, like Joshua, they just admitted they want to drive out the inhabitants of the land before them.