Israel charging money to demolsih Bedouin homes

[Tarheeler]

Were this true, then we'd not see controversy over illegal settlements which aren't razed.
To knock down only a few of the many appears to be disparate treatment.

It appears that only illegally built buildings are being torn down. Those that are legally constructed are left alone. I'm not a big fan of eminent domain, but if a government uses it, and uses it based on national need, then there isn't any controversy.

As for the controversy, I don't think it has anything to do with treatment. It has to do with the ethnicity of those involved. We see the same in every nation that has a minority group. Sometimes the cries of discrimination are justified, and sometimes it is not.

 

[Revoltingest]

It appears that only illegally built buildings are being torn down. Those that are legally constructed are left alone. I'm not a big fan of eminent domain, but if a government uses it, and uses it based on national need, then there isn't any controversy.

As for the controversy, I don't think it has anything to do with treatment. It has to do with the ethnicity of those involved. We see the same in every nation that has a minority group. Sometimes the cries of discrimination are justified, and sometimes it is not.

The definition of "illegal", the reasons for policies & opinions of each side may all be argued over, but the controversy remains, & interferes with the possibility of peaceful coexistence.
US Concern about Israel
Palestine Monitor Factsheet - Israeli settlements
US Concern about Israel
Israel defies freeze on illegal settlements - Middle East, World - The Independent
And to all those ready to pounce upon sources, please remember that the point is about how opposing sides feel, not about "facts" pointing to why they shouldn't feel that way.

 

[Tarheeler]

The definition of "illegal", the reasons for policies & opinions of each side may all be argued over, but the controversy remains, & interferes with the possibility of peaceful coexistence.
US Concern about Israel
Palestine Monitor Factsheet - Israeli settlements
US Concern about Israel
Israel defies freeze on illegal settlements - Middle East, World - The Independent
And to all those ready to pounce upon sources, please remember that the point is about how opposing sides feel, not about "facts" pointing to why they shouldn't feel that way.

The Israeli government's definition of an illegal settlement and the international definition are separate issues. Considering that many nations violate "international law" everyday, it is fairly moot in this case. The government tears downs illegal buildings as defined by it's law; it does so to both Jewish and non-Jewish constructed buildings.

And I'm not concerned as to how those involved feel about, I'm more concerned about the law being applied universally. If the Bedouins have buildings torn down they're going to upset, just as if the Jewish settlers have buildings torn down they're going to upset. It's completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Israeli government's definition of an illegal settlement and the international definition are separate issues. Considering that many nations violate "international law" everyday, it is fairly moot in this case. The government tears downs illegal buildings as defined by it's law; it does so to both Jewish and non-Jewish constructed buildings.

You're speaking to legal justification for something which foments hostility.
Of course Israel can pass laws which allow them to do as they please. What
isn't moot is that this causes continued rancor.

And I'm not concerned as to how those involved feel about, I'm more concerned about the law being applied universally. If the Bedouins have buildings torn down they're going to upset, just as if the Jewish settlers have buildings torn down they're going to upset. It's completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

The Bedouins have been there since before Israeli law was imposed upon them.
To conquer people, impose one's own law, & then cite that same imposed law doesn't make it right.

 

[Tarheeler]

You're speaking to legal justification for something which foments hostility.
Of course Israel can pass laws which allow them to do as they please. What
isn't moot is that this causes continued rancor.

The Bedouins have been there since before Israeli law was imposed upon them.
To conquer people, impose one's own law, & then cite that same imposed law doesn't make it right.

Again, as far I'm concerned, it's irrelevant. No action will make all parties happy. The action in question affects all parties and understandably makes them upset. That doesn't change the fact that the government has the same right as every other nation to enforce eminent domain.

Everyone who was in the area when Israel was formed has had to deal with the same laws. The same has occurred when every modern nation was formed from the remains of another. I see no problem with it as long as the law itself is not discriminatory and it is applied uniformly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, as far I'm concerned, it's irrelevant. No action will make all parties happy. The action in question affects all parties and understandably makes them upset. That doesn't change the fact that the government has the same right as every other nation to enforce eminent domain.

A "right" is not an absolutely true thing. If rancor escalates, some nation might decide that it's their right to destroy Israel. And by the same
reasoning, it would be equally justifiable. I simply urge more creativity in avoiding exercising rights which conflict with others' rights.

Everyone who was in the area when Israel was formed has had to deal with the same laws. The same has occurred when every modern nation was formed from the remains of another. I see no problem with it as long as the law itself is not discriminatory and it is applied uniformly.

Would Jews be so sanguine if conflict resulted in another nation being formed upon the remains of Israel?

 

[Tarheeler]

A "right" is not an absolutely true thing. If rancor escalates, some nation might decide that it's their right to destroy Israel. And by the same
reasoning, it would be equally justifiable. I simply urge more creativity in avoiding exercising rights which conflict with others' rights.

Would Jews be so sanguine if conflict resulted in another nation being formed upon the remains of Israel?

Not at all. Just because people are upset when the law applies to them does not enable other nations to attack. If so, the US and every other nation should have been leveled a long time ago; eminent domain upsets many people in this country.

As I've said from the beginning, I think how those affected by the law feel is largely irrelevant, particularly in the case of eminent domain.

As for what would happen if Israel is destroyed, who knows?
While it might be an interesting question, it is definitely well out of the scope of this thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not at all. Just because people are upset when the law applies to them does not enable other nations to attack.

I only argue that inventive peaceful solutions can help avoid motivating others to attack.

If so, the US and every other nation should have been leveled a long time ago; eminent domain upsets many people in this country.

This is a large issue than the strictly domestic legal one. It's applied in a context of people who might see that they were conquered, lost land, lost liberty & lost sovereignty.

As I've said from the beginning, I think how those affected by the law feel is largely irrelevant, particularly in the case of eminent domain.
As for what would happen if Israel is destroyed, who knows?
While it might be an interesting question, it is definitely well out of the scope of this thread.

I urge them to plan to minimize the likelihood that anyone will be destroyed.

 

[Tarheeler]

I only argue that inventive peaceful solutions can help avoid motivating others to attack.


This is a large issue than the strictly domestic legal one. It's applied in a context of people who might see that they were conquered, lost land, lost liberty & lost sovereignty.


I urge them to plan to minimize the likelihood that anyone will be destroyed.

I disagree.
The issue discussed in this thread is purely a domestic one; it's the issue of a government enforcing eminent domain and the party subject to that order getting upset about it.

Many people see themselves as being victimized at the hands of the government, whether it is a (recently) newly formed one or one which has been around for centuries. As I said in my first response to you, sometimes the claim is justified, and sometimes it is not.

 

[Revoltingest]

I disagree.
The issue discussed in this thread is purely a domestic one; it's the issue of a government enforcing eminent domain and the party subject to that order getting upset about it.
Many people see themselves as being victimized at the hands of the government, whether it is a (recently) newly formed one or one which has been around for centuries. As I said in my first response to you, sometimes the claim is justified, and sometimes it is not.

That is certainly one way to see it.
But I see others.

(I know that sounds lame, but I've nothing of substance to add.)

 

[Tarheeler]

....
(I know that sounds lame, but I've nothing of substance to add.)

Not lame at all.
We've both stated our POV's, and we disagree. It's a perfectly fine way to end the discussion. Much better than a dragged-out (or would it be drugged-out?) sparring fest that ends badly.

 

[Alceste]

Actually, you know what? you were right. (OMG did I say that?yep I did)
upon reading the article it doesn't say that those two families actually had a lease to the property. It does say that the government had been leasing the land for agricultural purposes to Bedouins, but that those two families ousted(ran off) the leasees and began squatting. Hence the eviction process.

It says the Isreali land planning commission says that. Does it surprise you that they have crafted some kind of legal argument in the pursuit of their lawsuit? Doesn't surprise me. The article also mentions the defense's legal argument, which contradicts the government's claims. Who is right? The article does not bother to investigate.

The question, for me, though, is not what the Israeli government claims the bureaucratic specifics of the Bedouins' land title happens to be. After all, the Israeli government can say whatever they want, and make it so, to further their ends in manipulating the ethnic make-up of this or that voting district. The question that matters to me is: is it right for Israel to forcibly relocate non-Jewish Israelis who have been living in a village since before Israel existed in order to replace them with Jewish Israelis?

According to international law, it isn't.

 

[Alceste]

So wait a minute. You don't care whether you are wrong or right, just so you come out on top at the end? Damn. talk about an ego.

I know I am right, morally: It is indeed wrong for a government to forcibly relocate a community of citizens based on their ethnicity in order to replace them with citizens of a preferred ethnicity. I have provided sources that validate my moral position and demonstrate that it is not only wrong, but also illegal.

It's not about beating you, rakhel. It's about speaking up for people who are suffering human rights abuses. I could not look myself in the mirror if I did not speak out for what I know to be morally right, and against what I know to be wrong. I don't expect to change your mind, but I hope to change the tone. I don't like how many Westerners are conditioned like Pavlov's dog to start slobbering about the Hamas charter every time a light is shone on Israel's brutal and racist public policies.

If I can do my part to keep a conversation like this on topic, I think we all win.

 

[Alceste]

yes it can and it does, After a lengthy process of retrospective planning appliations and appeal you lose . They will put an enforcemnt order on it and they will ask you to demolish it ,if you dont they will demolish it and charge you for it.






Where the requirements of an enforcement notice have not been carried out and a prosecution does not persuade the owner to comply then the Council may enter the land and carry out the requirement itself and the owner or the occupier would have to compensate the Council for the costs of such action.


Oxford City Council - Enforcement Of Planning Control

Which ethnicity does the British government specifically target with their demolitions, and which ethnicity do they deliver their lands to after demolition?

 

[Alceste]

It appears that only illegally built buildings are being torn down. Those that are legally constructed are left alone. I'm not a big fan of eminent domain, but if a government uses it, and uses it based on national need, then there isn't any controversy.

As for the controversy, I don't think it has anything to do with treatment. It has to do with the ethnicity of those involved. We see the same in every nation that has a minority group. Sometimes the cries of discrimination are justified, and sometimes it is not.

This is not an eminent domain issue. Eminent domain is not used for ethnic manipulation. The state in civilized countries (generally speaking) does not forcibly oust citizens of one race religion from their own private property in order to deliver it into the hands of citizens of another race or religion. At least, when they do, it is not under the banner of "eminent domain".

It was wrong when the colonialists did it to the native populations of their conquered territories, it was wrong when the Germans did it to the Jews, it was wrong when Zimbabwe did it to white plantation owners, and it is wrong when the Jews do it to the Arabs.

If you don't want the state bulldozing your home to make room for somebody from another race or religion, you need to speak up for everybody, wherever you see it happening. Otherwise they might start to get the idea we're all OK with that sort of thing.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Wait, these people didn't live here for generations. They built a community without the proper permits, and doing so, opened themselves to eviction and bulldozing. This isn't a race issue at all. This is the way Israel handles unauthorized buildings, both Jewish and Arab. Don't like it? Well, these are Bedouins, who can just cross the international border to a country that doesn't do this. But wait! Jordan and Egypt do this too. I guess you're primarily ******** because Israel is applying the law against Arabs just as they apply it against Jews. Hypocrite much?

 

[kai]

Which ethnicity does the British government specifically target with their demolitions, and which ethnicity do they deliver their lands to after demolition?

Ethnicity is not a planning issue , certain organisations can make it one in cases like the romany. but without the planning consent it doesnt matter what ethnicity you are. you break the rules it can ultimately come down and you could foot the bill.

Travellers have been known to buy land legitimately and then build a community on it without the relevent permission. eventually if they dont get the permision its demolished and returned to its original state. If its not their land to begin with it returns to the original owner whoever or whatever they are , or even the state if they hold the title. It makes no difference what ehnic background your from when you develop a piece of land without the necessary permisions even if you own it.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

kai,
From the articles, the land was designated for agricultural use. That means communities aren't supposed to be built there anyways. Also, the land was Israeli government property. Ok, so if the Arabs want to cultivate that land, they need to lease it from Israel. Otherwise, they are subject to eviction, bulldozing, general harassment.

 

[kai]

kai,
From the articles, the land was designated for agricultural use. That means communities aren't supposed to be built there anyways. Also, the land was Israeli government property. Ok, so if the Arabs want to cultivate that land, they need to lease it from Israel. Otherwise, they are subject to eviction, bulldozing, general harassment.

Yeah i know. heres an example from England.

The date has been set after the Travellers lost their last legal challenge in the decade-long row, despite a United Nations committee calling on the government to suspend the eviction. The Travellers' cause has been taken up by celebrities including the actor Vanessa Redgrave, and young activists have moved on to the site determined to help them resist eviction.
Kathleen McCarthy, one of those facing losing her home, said there would be "a brutal eviction", despite the statement from Basildon council that they would not cut off the water when the electricity was cut.


Dale Farm Travellers get eviction date | UK news | The Guardian

 

[Rakhel]

seems the only ones making this a racial issue are Alceste and Bismillah. Wonder why that is?