Protesters Turn Out For Teaneck Settlement Sale
The AP reports,
American Jews on Sunday were given information on how to buy homes on the West Bank, an event the organizer promoted as a way to help Jewish settlers.
The effort has drawn rebukes from an Israeli group as well as pro-Palestinian organizations, who say such efforts undermine international peace efforts. Some of their members protested outside the meeting, held at an Orthodox synagogue in Teaneck, Congregation B’nai Yeshurun.
The opposition groups believe the gathering represented the first time West Bank homes have been offered for sale in the United States.
They also questioned whether the sale of what they consider illegally occupied lands violates anti-discrimination laws, but a New Jersey official has said state and federal authorities have no jurisdiction on overseas property.
“…who say such efforts undermine international peace efforts.”
Yes, since the removal of Jews from their homes has been such a successful strategy for achieving “peace” so far…
“They also questioned whether the sale of what they consider illegally occupied lands violates anti-discrimination laws”
I’m mystified. The land is disputed–what does that have to do with “discrimination”?
Where is the shame?
Eric, please open your eyes! “Disputed land?” How far into the bowels of Goebbels and Orwell did you have to reach, for that?
I like that. “Removal of Jews from their homes”.
i.e. – the homes which they bought from teaneck and which they never meant to live in? well, evicting *those* Jews has never been tried, so maybe we can do it now!
I say – if you want to be a right-wing fanatic, you have no right to live anywhere but the territories.
Perhaps the discrimination is in that they will only sell those homes to Jews and not to anyone else. I believe we have a word for that in English. I think it’s called discrimination.
“I say – if you want to be a right-wing fanatic, you have no right to live anywhere but the territories.”
Please be serious.
As much as we may disagree with these right-wingers, and view their advocacy-of-settlement-building-whilst-refusing-to-live-in-settlements as pure hipocrisy, one’s political views need not be limited by one’s place of residence.
Right wing fanatics can be right wing fanatics in Teaneck; Right wing fanatics can live in Tel Aviv; Left wing “Zionists” can live in San Francisco; etc.
This would have made a good target for direct action, as opposed to legal intervention. Maybe a little ‘machsom’ preventing entrance to the parking lot…
Eric, please open your eyes! “Disputed land?†How far into the bowels of Goebbels and Orwell did you have to reach, for that?
Can we please be careful with the Nazi allusions?
one’s political views need not be limited by one’s place of residence
au contraire! Living in ISrael – as I do – and making the conscious political decision every minute not to leave – I say your place of residence does nothing more significant than to limit your political views.
How much of a (law abiding) american can you be if you really are a communist? How is a good saudi to like alcohol? How can someone who thinks Jews should inhabit the entire west bank say he’ll be living in Teaneck?
“Perhaps the discrimination is in that they will only sell those homes to Jews and not to anyone else. I believe we have a word for that in English. I think it’s called discrimination.”
I understand, but that really doesn’t add up. The protestors would prefer that the land in question be cleared of Jews entirely and given exclusively to Arabs–a proposed solution that would obviously be at least as “discriminatory”. For its part the Palestinian Authority has had a law on the books for almost 10 years now which imposes the death penalty on any Arab who sells land to an Israeli. I’d say that kind of takes “discrimination” to a whole new level.
“Can we please be careful with the Nazi allusions?”
Thank you, I’m glad I’m not the only one who found that little ad hitlerium resort to be out of line and bizarrely out of whack.
As to the actual issue yes, “disputed” seems to be the most accurate word available for the West Bank (biggest darn riverbank I ever saw…). It’s certainly no more “occupied” now than it was “occupied” when the Jordanian military held it for 19 years, or the British and the Turks and the LoN before that. It’s never been under the full political sovereignty of any modern nation-state, except perhaps the areas that the PLO took control of since 1993–but the PLO still doesn’t meet the usual nation-state criteria.
on three occasions, the Israeli high court of justice has confirmed the West Bank is held in a “state of belligerent occupation.” The PLO prohibits the sale of land to Jews not because they want a state without Jews, but because sales to Jews inevitably lead to Jews-only settlements that push Palestinians out of the area, and that Israel aims to hold onto permanently.
I notice Peace Now and Meretz dont seem much interested in mentioning that all settlements in occupied territory are illegal according to international law. rather, they mention it’s bad for peace and bad for Jews, but want to keep it an internal issue and avoid international pressure by mentioning the legal status.
Peace Now and Meretz have consistently used the word ‘illegal’ to describe the settlements. It may be that here and there some other verbiage was used, but their basic position is not what you describe.
The one area where one might quibble, is that they haven’t emphasized the illegality of all Jerusalem neighborhoods on occupied land. But there too – they created and supported an NGO ‘Ir Shalem’ to fight for the rights of the occupied.
Hmmph.
“The PLO prohibits the sale of land to Jews not because they want a state without Jews, but because sales to Jews inevitably lead to Jews-only settlements that push Palestinians out of the area, and that Israel aims to hold onto permanently.”
Fine, so Israel could likewise prohibit land sales to Arabs on the same grounds. It’s obviously “discriminatory” either way. I’d love to see the response if Israel also imposed a death penalty on land sales to persons of the wrong religion like the PLO has.
Meretz USA mentioned nothing about international law in its letter about teaneck to the NYT: http://www.meretzusa.org/
as for Peace Now, this is from the JTA:
http://jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=17621&intcategoryid=4
Gelman claims that the sale of land in occupied territory is illegal according to international law.
Ori Nir, a spokesman for Americans for Peace Now, wasn’t sure if that was the case, but said he opposed the sales all the same.
“The legal issue here is not our focus,†Nir told JTA in a telephone interview two days before the event. “Politically we think American Jews would do much better for Israel’s interests and well-being if they would invest their money in promoting peace and security for Israel and not enterprises that would perpetuate its conflict with its neighbors.â€
Strengthening Jewish settlements in the West Bank will make a two-state solution to the conflict more difficult to implement, Nir said.
(BTW, the reporter was given documentation showing that (for example) B’tselem, AI, HRW, and the ICJ consider all settlements illegal. He opted to ignore that and juxtapose the opinion of an unknown activist and a Peace Now spokesperson instead)
—
I just checked Peace Now’s website. they are like magicians; they make 200,000 settlers living in occupied E. Jerusalem dissappear. 268,000 is the number they use here for all settlers, which they quote from the ministry of the Interior:
http://www.peacenow.org.il/site/en/peace.asp?pi=62&docid=2234
one might quibble over 200,000 settlers, yes.
“How can someone who thinks Jews should inhabit the entire west bank say he’ll be living in Teaneck?”
Easily. Like I said, one can “think” whatever he wants, wherever he wants.
I think Israelis have a right — in principle — to live anywhere in the Land of Israel (so far as individual rights of others are not unduly impinged). Why can’t I “think” that from California?
I also “think” non-Arab Darfuris have a right to live in Darfur. No one’s asking me to move to Darfur in order to “think” this.
I also think women have a right to a safe legal abortion. Must I get one myself? Must I even allow my daughter to get one? No and no.
Sure, one’s pro-settlement position may be morally strengthened in your eyes if the person taking the position actually lives in a settlement. But one can take that “position” regardless of where they live.
I support the existence of a Jewish state. Must I live in sovereign Israel to hold this view? As an Israeli, you of all people should see the value in Jews of the Diaspora that nonetheless support the right to live in Israel, even if they themselves do not wish to exercize that right.
“Sure, one’s pro-settlement position may be morally strengthened in your eyes if the person taking the position actually lives in a settlement. But one can take that “position†regardless of where they live.”
Exactly.
This is similar to the nonsensical “chickenhawk” argument i.e. you never served in the military therefore you cannot support military action.