Israel ex-minister: Settlement funding is corrupt

[Ulysses G.]

Utter BS, the British were in cahoots with the Jews. Just check what Orde Wingate was up to in the 1930s in Palestine!

No, the reality is that British simply couldn't make their mind up and tried the impossible, which was promising both sides at different times and assuming this would not gets people's back up. 'Individuals' Brits were in cahoots with both sides at different times and at different levels (politicians back in London or in situ in the Mandate, local commanders, to soldiers themselves). Wingate, for all his success cannot be pointed to as being 'standard' British policy. Eventually he was recognised by the British Government to have too strong a personal interest in what he was doing there, and was sent elsewhere, never to set foot there again in his life. At flash point, some British soldiers were known to have stayed behind and fought with the Jews and some were known to have assisted Arabs in carrying out attacks on Jews. One example is February 22, 1948 on Ben Yehuda street.

Kudos. Someone who actually knows their history. The British stabbed both sides in the back and both sides launched attacks on them. Those are the FACTS.

[Munsterman]

Utter BS, the British were in cahoots with the Jews. Just check what Orde Wingate was up to in the 1930s in Palestine!

No, the reality is that British simply couldn't make their mind up and tried the impossible, which was promising both sides at different times and assuming this would not gets people's back up. 'Individuals' Brits were in cahoots with both sides at different times and at different levels (politicians back in London or in situ in the Mandate, local commanders, to soldiers themselves). Wingate, for all his success cannot be pointed to as being 'standard' British policy. Eventually he was recognised by the British Government to have too strong a personal interest in what he was doing there, and was sent elsewhere, never to set foot there again in his life. At flash point, some British soldiers were known to have stayed behind and fought with the Jews and some were known to have assisted Arabs in carrying out attacks on Jews. One example is February 22, 1948 on Ben Yehuda street.

Kudos. Someone who actually knows their history. The British stabbed both sides in the back and both sides launched attacks on them. Those are the FACTS.

Maybe so - but totally irrelevant to this topic, which is about the sleazy nature of the Israeli political world and its incessant land theft from Palestinians since 1948. The central point here is that there is adequate evidence that Israeli politicians are as materially corrupt as they are morally.

[Ulysses G.]

The Palestinians have no land. They refused it in 1948. IMO, the settlements are a way to tell them that they might never have any, unless they stop the terrorist attacks, start negotiating and sign a peace deal. They have been stalling for 66 years.

[kingalfred]

The Palestinians have no land. They refused it in 1948. IMO, the settlements are a way to tell them that they might never have any, unless they stop the terrorist attacks, start negotiating and sign a peace deal. They have been stalling for 66 years.

funny how this isnt "off topic". Or maybe it isnt so unusual on TV

[Puccini]

" Netanyahu's office said Thursday that Israel was a "lawful state with a moral army that observes all international laws," "

Perhaps it's playing with words, basing the statement on the word "was", meaning once upon a time, because it certainly does not observe many international laws these days.

No, it is not a question of playing with words, but a matter of English grammar. Discussing this here would probably be off topic and if you have a question about it you may want to go to an apposite forum, for example groups.google.com/d/forum/alt.usage.english

[Jingthing]

The Palestinians have no land. They refused it in 1948. IMO, the settlements are a way to tell them that they might never have any, unless they stop the terrorist attacks, start negotiating and sign a peace deal. They have been stalling for 66 years.

funny how this isnt "off topic". Or maybe it isnt so unusual on TV

Controlled by Mossad no doubt ...

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Seastallion]

And this is the country that claims they want peace, yet pour millions of dollars into expanding the illegal settlements in disputed lands.

To be fair, it isn't 'disputed' as far as Israel's opponents are concerned is it.

What I mean is, if it was truly classed as disputed by both sides, then 'nobody' would be building at all.

As it happens, both sides rush to build on that land so both sides clearly believe that it is theirs without dispute.

I don't follow your reasoning.

If both parties think it's theirs, one of the parties, at least, is wrong, and both dispute the other's right to it.

In fact Israel concedes it's disputed territory, as doers the UN ans the ICC.

[Morch]

I was unaware that Israel was directly funding settlements/settlers. Settlements, when funded by a government in contested, disputed, or armistice areas amount to "transfers;" a violation of International Law [GC]. This crap kinda concerns me. As a loud advocate of Israeli positions generally, I find this, if true, disturbing.

I personally think the West Bank belongs to Israel totally and was taken by Jordanian forces in 1948. Retaken by Israel in 1967, and now full of local arabs/palestinians who were largely "transferred" in, Israel offers the position that the West Bank is subject to final status talks.

Israel offers to the international community the State position that the West Bank is disputed. Since this is the Israeli position that does make "transfers" of settlers into the West Bank a crime under international law and treaty.

Settlement funding would actually be illegal.

It is even worse than that.

There were many cases in which settlements were raised against government wishes and with disregard to laws.

Once they are there, though, most Israeli governments tend to put up with them. As time goes by state sponsored

security, services, facilities, infrastructure and de-facto acceptance are the norm.

There were a few cases (in the West Bank, that is, not counting the Sinai peninsula and Gaza Strip settlements)

where through Supreme Court rulings, the state had to clear off some settlements, but governments usually tried

their best to drag their feet, and find loopholes around such rulings. For the latest case, Google Amona.

While Israeli governments differentiate between legal (as in government sanctioned) settlements and illegal ones,

the difference in law enforcement is less pronounced. There are many NGO's covering these issues, but here is

a summary of a rather well known (or notorious, depends on perspective) official Israeli government report:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasson_Report

I have to say that it is not often, certainly not on this forum and on these topics, that someone publicly admits he

may have been wrong.

[Morch]

So we see yet again a disregard for the law by these despotic Zionists.

Now how might this affect the opinion of other states and possibly the U.N. too?

So you somehow jumped to the conclusion that Lapid (the ex-minister quoted) and his party do not define themselves as Zionist?

How what will effect anything? This is hardly news to anyone that is even slightly familiar with things in the region.

[Morch]

" Netanyahu's office said Thursday that Israel was a "lawful state with a moral army that observes all international laws," "

Perhaps it's playing with words, basing the statement on the word "was", meaning once upon a time, because it certainly does not observe many international laws these days.

The usual hyperbole.

Israel follows most international laws, as there are a multitude of them. If it wasn't doing so it would be shunned like

North Korea and similar countries (yeah yeah...."someone" is bound to come back with the post of how this is fast

becoming a reality ).

That there are international laws breached by Israel is not an argument. the wholesale claim though is totally bogus.

[Morch]

And this is the country that claims they want peace, yet pour millions of dollars into expanding the illegal settlements in disputed lands.

Hopefully this will be another nail in the zionist's coffin as far as the UN and the international community is concerned.

With some posters claiming that Hamas is actually in favor of negotiations, while it pours millions into producing rockets and digging its tunnels, this is not so strange a claim.

Of course, both statements would be a little one dimensional as far as they describe realities, but not as easy to put that into a one liner response.

Why would anyone imagine that this would be a nail in anything? Does anyone seriously think that the UN and most of the international community are not aware of these issues for a long long time now?

[Jingthing]

The fact there is more than one crime. building "illegal settlements" AND politicians/high ranking Israeli making money from the corrupt activity. Not holding the country to a "higher state" but showing the depths of its International and domestic criminal actions. Not surprised the Israeli apologists wouldn't ever criticise the state for anything!

I suppose if someone actually states that Israel never does anything wrong you could make that charge. I haven't noticed even one poster here who I would describe that way.

[Morch]

It's all just politicking by Lapid, who mistakenly thinks he can gain popularity by aligning himself with the current US administration position on settlements. Netanyahu, who has in my opinion judged the mood of the nation correctly, which is to send a large raspberry to outside meddlers and continue settlement building unabated. Such unilateral moves are indeed a logical response to the current unilateral stance adopted by the Palestinian authority.

Yes, it is politicking by Lapid, obviously.

It is also nothing new and he is simply trying to harness the latest police investigation against a rival party to his own gain. Conveniently forgetting that as Minister of Finance he authorized transfer of larger budgets to the settlements on more than one occasion. Then political necessities.

To Lapid's defense, he was never pro-settlements, even if he was never at the forefront of those against them. Probably got to do with TV rating issues. So while his position was not that pronounced, it is not something new - certainly goes back well before the current USA administration time.

Not familiar with a credible source showing that the "mood of the nation" somehow supports continued building in the illegal settlements. Can hardly be said to be a consensus among Israelis.

[Morch]

I believe the topic is settlements?

Well, it is actually about an embattled Israeli politician, who's party is currently faring rather poorly on poles.

There is nothing new in the claim itself, and most parties in Israel rob the public treasury before elections, if

they are in a position to do so. Those that cannot - denounce it.

The related story, which takes the backseat on this report (regarding rambunctious corruption on the part of

another party) is actually the one making headlines on Israeli media, while Lapid's claim is mostly seen for

what it is - election fodder. Not that it isn't true, just that the assumed indignation is not fooling most people.

Israeli government funding of settlements in the West Bank is nothing new.

[Morch]

I seems to be at a loss why some members here babbling about 'transfer', what transfer,

who got transferred?when why? no Arab Palestinians got transferred since 1948,

save but few individuals for a security reasons,

There is a general election going on in Israel right now, and all the many parties are jockeying

for positions and will say anything to have the edge and to muddy and tarnish his.\/her opponents,

Anyone who didn't know the government of Israel was funding new and old settlements

for many years now, knows nothing about the middle east...

I have not noted one other member using the term "transfer" other than me.

I don't see it as being much different from eminent domain, which is the power of a state or a national government to take private property for public use. Why should these areas not be utilized for the common good, if the Palestinians refuse to make a peace deal?

Who's common good?

If the area was developed in a way which would also benefit the Palestinians this claim might have had half a leg to stand on. As it is...it fails miserably.

Applying eminent domain sort of thing to a disputed territory (not to mention an occupied one) is not usually acceptable.

[Morch]

And this is the country that claims they want peace, yet pour millions of dollars into expanding the illegal settlements in disputed lands.

To be fair, it isn't 'disputed' as far as Israel's opponents are concerned is it.

What I mean is, if it was truly classed as disputed by both sides, then 'nobody' would be building at all.

As it happens, both sides rush to build on that land so both sides clearly believe that it is theirs without dispute.

I don't follow your reasoning.

If both parties think it's theirs, one of the parties, at least, is wrong, and both dispute the other's right to it.

In fact Israel concedes it's disputed territory, as doers the UN ans the ICC.

It might come as a shock, but not all situations in life end up with someone being clearly right and the other clearly wrong. How about allowing for the possibility that some claims on each side hold merit while some do not? Or that sometimes the two sides can both be right, and yet a solution would have to be reached through compromise? So many more variations than this black and white world view...

[Ulysses G.]

I seems to be at a loss why some members here babbling about 'transfer', what transfer,

who got transferred?when why? no Arab Palestinians got transferred since 1948,

save but few individuals for a security reasons,

There is a general election going on in Israel right now, and all the many parties are jockeying

for positions and will say anything to have the edge and to muddy and tarnish his.\/her opponents,

Anyone who didn't know the government of Israel was funding new and old settlements

for many years now, knows nothing about the middle east...

I have not noted one other member using the term "transfer" other than me.

I don't see it as being much different from eminent domain, which is the power of a state or a national government to take private property for public use. Why should these areas not be utilized for the common good, if the Palestinians refuse to make a peace deal?

Who's common good?

Cities in other countries sometimes use eminent domain to force people off their land, so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing. It is not like everyone always agrees with the decisions.

[Morch]

I have not noted one other member using the term "transfer" other than me.

I don't see it as being much different from eminent domain, which is the power of a state or a national government to take private property for public use. Why should these areas not be utilized for the common good, if the Palestinians refuse to make a peace deal?

Who's common good?

Cities in other countries sometimes use eminent domain to force people off their land, so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing. It is not like everyone always agrees with the decisions.

Yes, and that always goes down well with the public? No outcry over business interests winning over civil rights? Regardless, even if this was somehow close to the situation in the West Bank, it would be very difficult to point out how "developing" the area contributed to Israel as a whole. At the very least, whatever slogans may appear as reply would certainly be far from representing consensus opinion.

As an aside, analogies to neighbor relationships, business practices etc. often fall short of encompassing many aspects of actual events. People evicted in cities, within countries, are usually citizens of said country - as such they are usually not living under martial law, and got greater legal recourse. The higher tax thing mentioned is ironic - most of the illegal settlements and settlers enjoy major tax breaks.

[kingalfred]

I seems to be at a loss why some members here babbling about 'transfer', what transfer,
who got transferred?when why? no Arab Palestinians got transferred since 1948,
save but few individuals for a security reasons,

There is a general election going on in Israel right now, and all the many parties are jockeying
for positions and will say anything to have the edge and to muddy and tarnish his.\/her opponents,

Anyone who didn't know the government of Israel was funding new and old settlements
for many years now, knows nothing about the middle east...

I have not noted one other member using the term "transfer" other than me.

I don't see it as being much different from eminent domain, which is the power of a state or a national government to take private property for public use. Why should these areas not be utilized for the common good, if the Palestinians refuse to make a peace deal?

Who's common good?

Cities in other countries sometimes use eminent domain to force people off their land, so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing. It is not like everyone always agrees with the decisions.

Highlights how you view the illegal Israeli building settlements on Palestines land .Equating it with private developers within a country building on a prime real estate site. Sort of like California I guess. Edited January 3, 2015 by Scott

[arjunadawn]

I seems to be at a loss why some members here babbling about 'transfer', what transfer,

who got transferred?when why? no Arab Palestinians got transferred since 1948,

save but few individuals for a security reasons,

There is a general election going on in Israel right now, and all the many parties are jockeying

for positions and will say anything to have the edge and to muddy and tarnish his.\/her opponents,

Anyone who didn't know the government of Israel was funding new and old settlements

for many years now, knows nothing about the middle east...

I have not noted one other member using the term "transfer" other than me.

I don't see it as being much different from eminent domain, which is the power of a state or a national government to take private property for public use. Why should these areas not be utilized for the common good, if the Palestinians refuse to make a peace deal?

Who's common good?

If the area was developed in a way which would also benefit the Palestinians this claim might have had half a leg to stand on. As it is...it fails miserably.

Applying eminent domain sort of thing to a disputed territory (not to mention an occupied one) is not usually acceptable.

The observation regarding "transfers" being much like "eminent domain" is valid- the analogy holds, IMO. One can reduce the comparison to cartoon-like municiple acts but the central fact remains: States build infrastructure under eminent domain-like authority and international law does envision the use of State infrastructure development as a smokescreen to enable population movements (highways, bridges, tunnels, etc); this is spelled out pretty clearly in the Geneva Convention Protocols.

I have stated that I believe transfers are illegal under international law when the land is disputed. Therefore, I disagree with the Israeli calculation to regard the West Bank as disputed so it can be managed in final status negotiations. I simply believe the West Bank is Israel's, and this position is not popular at all, nor even useful, I concede. For land to be soverign it must be occupied and controlled. The palestinians occupy the land but do not control it, irrespective of their wishes= it is disputed.

If Israel never noted this land to be disputed nor conceded this point of order, then building, settling, etc., would appear appropriate legally, but the claim itself would have to be adjudicated. However, there is no need to determine if the land is disputed; its conceded! Israel states it is disputed, not solely outright owned. Therefore, the law is clear, transfers and the acts that enable population movements are illegal. Israel does this. This is illegal. The degree to which this is now apparent to me is new. I had not previously understood exactly what Israel was doing with settlements and the State. While my position regarding the land being owned by Israel outright seems outlandish to some the fact that Israel is wholesale manipulating population demographics to serve as proxies in later negotiations is far more disturbing to me.

Edited January 3, 2015 by arjunadawn

[Ulysses G.]

The higher tax thing mentioned is ironic - most of the illegal settlements and settlers enjoy major tax breaks.

That might be true, but it does not mean that they would not get more taxes than they do from whoever is living there now.

As far as eminent domain going over well, how much does that really matter? It happens all the time all over the place. Some people contest it and sometimes they even win. Mostly they don't.

Several Indian tribes in America have been fighting the Federal government for years over tribal lands that were taken away from them under eminent domain. It is a very common practice all over the planet and the government usually wins in the end.

[Morch]

The higher tax thing mentioned is ironic - most of the illegal settlements and settlers enjoy major tax breaks.

That might be true, but it does not mean that they would not get more taxes than they do from whoever is living there now.

As far as eminent domain going over well, how much does that really matter? It happens all the time all over the place. Some people contest it and sometimes they even win. Mostly they don't.

Several Indian tribes in America have been fighting the Federal government for years over tribal lands that were taken away from them under eminent domain. It is a very common practice all over the planet and the government usually wins in the end.

Getting a bit outlandish. To spell it out - from an economic point of view, the illegal settlements are a black hole. There is no conceivable economic justification for the investment made over the years, not without resorting to political or religious reasoning. There is no one disputing this in Israel, not even the settlers themselves.

Israeli governments actually made extensive use of the eminent domain thing. Eminent domain, by itself, is not the issue. Indeed, many instances all over the world. It happens all the time within countries, where governments are the accepted rulers. When it is applied to a territory even said government agree is disputed (with most of the world saying it is occupied), the situation is different.

If the justification for eminent domain claim is that it works out for the common good, then it needs to be demonstrated that building illegal settlements and related infrastructure, mostly serving Israeli citizens, and in many ways causing hardship for the Palestinian population, serves the common good. If, for some reason, the Palestinians are deemed as immaterial to this claim, then it needs to be demonstrated that the settlement effort is serving the Israeli public's common good.

[Seastallion]

And this is the country that claims they want peace, yet pour millions of dollars into expanding the illegal settlements in disputed lands.

To be fair, it isn't 'disputed' as far as Israel's opponents are concerned is it.

What I mean is, if it was truly classed as disputed by both sides, then 'nobody' would be building at all.

As it happens, both sides rush to build on that land so both sides clearly believe that it is theirs without dispute.

I don't follow your reasoning.

If both parties think it's theirs, one of the parties, at least, is wrong, and both dispute the other's right to it.

In fact Israel concedes it's disputed territory, as doers the UN ans the ICC.

It might come as a shock, but not all situations in life end up with someone being clearly right and the other clearly wrong. How about allowing for the possibility that some claims on each side hold merit while some do not? Or that sometimes the two sides can both be right, and yet a solution would have to be reached through compromise? So many more variations than this black and white world view...

It may come as a shock to you that I did not claim one side was completely right, regardless of your desire to see my view as one-sided, which makes you read my words with one eye. You missed this bit; "One of the parties, at least....". I did address that both sides may have wrongness in their claims. However, since the land is admittedly occupied by military force, a reasonable view would be sceptical of the rightness of the occupier to settle on it.

[Ulysses G.]

Israeli governments actually made extensive use of the eminent domain thing.

Eminent domain, by itself, is not the issue. Indeed, many instances all over the world. It happens all the time within countries, where governments are the accepted rulers. When it is applied to a territory even said government agree

is disputed (with most of the world saying it is occupied), the situation is different.

We'll just have to disagree on this one. Israel considers the land to be disputed - not occupied. As such, there is no reason why Israel cannot build there and even seize land there under eminent domain. There is nothing in international law that would make settlements illegal.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4252945,00.html

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed. Members can speak for themselves.

[Morch]

Israeli governments actually made extensive use of the eminent domain thing.

Eminent domain, by itself, is not the issue. Indeed, many instances all over the world. It happens all the time within countries, where governments are the accepted rulers. When it is applied to a territory even said government agree

is disputed (with most of the world saying it is occupied), the situation is different.

We'll just have to disagree on this one. Israel considers the land to be disputed - not occupied. As such, there is no reason why Israel cannot build there and even seize land there under eminent domain. There is nothing in international law that would make settlements illegal.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4252945,00.html

The Levy report was commissioned as the conclusions of the previous Sasson Report did not fit right wing ideology and policy. While the objectivity of both reports could be argued, a main theme shared by both is that many of the settelments themselves (regardless of the territory ownership issue) were indeed illegal. The difference on this score was the Sasson report calling for applying existing laws, while the Levy report urged the government to accommodate the situation by law amendment.

There seems to be some confusion on this topic regarding the application of "legal" and "illegal" status of the West Bank settlements. Whether or not they conform to international law is one thing (which got more to do with the territory termed "disputed", "occupied" or whatever), the aspects of legality often referred to by Israeli sources are more to do with Israeli law. As far as the latter goes, many of the settlements are, indeed, illegal - issue being governments turning a blind eye, or even supporting illegal actions when those coincide with political goals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasson_Report

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levy_Report