After my last diary about small sovreignty bills, we get this in Ha'aretz tonight. One day later!
It seems that Israel has made its own determination that they can seize land in occupied territory if there is any dispute about ownership, apparently on the ground that the only occupied territory subject who have rights are those with clear title. That and abandoned ground, and ground taken by the state are fair game. And now they propose to do that.
In a diary otherwise banned last week for Godwin violations, there was a translated copy of a letter in the early days of the Israeli state about what ways might be legal or legalish in order to allow the new state to take over Palestinian property, the letter being the legal opinion of the writer of the letter, an international scholar. I do not have the cite for this diary. The letter indicated that taking of titled private property was probably not acceptable, but that using bureaucratic means to deal with land subject to dispute as to title meant that the taking was immune to international law because the title in the takee was unclear.
It has also been reported recently here that some possibly substantial areas in Palestine, reported as near the green line, were privately bought by the JNF through an intermediary in times past, which may produce title fights, depending on how far back in the chain of title and use the titles of sellers appear. One also recalls certain private individuals reported as deliberately and quietly purchasing old titles to land, which were then made available to settlers specifically, the purchase campaign being created for that purpose (the individual who lives in the US and got rich out of running bingo parlors being one famous one), and claims such as the St. John's Hospice situation. One also recalls the possibility and remunerativeness for state purposes at this point of claims to property which may arise in Hebron and other places out of the disorders and riots early in the last century. One also remembers Deputy FM Ayalon's recent video claim that all of WB is in fact not occupied but 'disputed' which might put the entire WB into play. In view of possible claims of evicted settlers in the time of Sharon, this one may also include land claims in Gaza. This may produce a very large amount of disputed land available to be claimed and seized under this ruling and this theory, particularly as all that needs be present to put land in this category is a dispute, not necessarily a valid one.
However, the IDF Civil Administration is now according to Ha'aretz taking the position that it needs on an urgent basis to do major land takeovers in WB, focused on disputed titles, and needed institutional buildings such as schools. The article makes relatively clear the point that what the takings they contemplate will be is substantial, and that these takings will make impossible the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state out of what is not taken, and that may be intentional. It also makes clear that the takings are expected to be so substantial that the land swaps provision of the proposed two state settlement will not be operable because there is not sufficient land in Israel to swap for what is proposed to be taken. Or at least that's what the article says. Ha'aretz is writing this stuff, not me.
In my limited understanding of the Fourth Geneva convention, the premise of doing the taking this way is that it might be legal or at least arguable under international law because of the bureaucratic wrinkles of land title, and the limitations perceived to be found in international law as to what sort of claims those in occupied territory have to protect their homes from being taken. The problem is, of course, that for decades title games of various kinds have been played in this area, and the Israelis control the bureaucracy especially in Area C, which determine uncertainties of title and want or withholding of essential permits, the absence of which permits allows the administration to destroy homes and such. This seems to be the point where that bureaucratic control is being deployed to assist in the ouster of Palestinians, who, of course get no compensation because their title is supposedly not perfect, and who will not be individually protected because their cases are so small as is their financial and other means of resisting.
At a time when surveys say Palestinians surveyed prefer normalcy over statehood, that is, things like health care and jobs are important and the political spins which consume us less so, this is an unfavorable development. There have also been articles which I did not save but can be found which indicate that the housing situation in Palestinian areas, Gaza in particular, are much more severe than those producing demonstrations now in Israel, the shortage being in the tens of thousands for an area which current reports also indicate has a very high family growth rate, and that Israel is carefully making sure that it approves whatever is constructed with cement and such in Gaza, and thus has a hand in that shortage. I also note the possibly unrelated timing of political disturbances in Israel concerning the shortage of affordable housing in Israel which has produced tent cities, and the peculiar invitation of Mr. Netanyahu that the demonstrators come with him to Jerusalem to get that straightened out, and his complaint about bureaucratic obstacles to obtaining the essential but unavailable or too costly housing needed in central Israel.
I strongly suspect that this is another matter being rushed to fall before the September UN event, another attempt to create facts on the ground which would be too politically costly to reverse once done. And the absence of explanation of what is supposed to happen to ejected Palestinians again raises my concern that the intention here is that the doers of this simply intend to leave the ejected to their fate, for whcih the ejector, having legal coverage in its own legal mind, will have no responsibility. Volley said in last night's discussion that a lot of issues here look like they are going to be decided by internal politics in Israel, and this seems more and more like one of them. If this was long in the works, it is now clear how it is that Netanyahu exploded when Obama's plan said start with the '67 lines and adjust from there. Under this there will be almost no Palestinian land to adjust.
Again, please discuss without flames, please, your views on what this not as new as it looks development might have on the two state plan or any other possible settlement.
Please note that I write from the West Coast, and will post this in the morning although I write at night, so that the diary will be up at a time that East Coast readers can see it before it goes off the list, which may mean you are up and posting before I am up at all.