Comments on Question & Answer TimeTypePad2007-04-12T08:33:06ZDavid Bognerhttps://www.treppenwitz.com/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://www.treppenwitz.com/2007/04/question_answer/comments/atom.xml/K Newman commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e5503ed66088332007-04-18T17:19:01Z2008-02-14T04:50:47ZK NewmanDavid, I'm tired of them getting a pass, too. Their radicals murdered almost 3,000 people in cold blood on 9/11,...<p>David,</p>
<p>I'm tired of them getting a pass, too. Their radicals murdered almost 3,000 people in cold blood on 9/11, the Muslims here in the US rarely speak out against them, CAIR is in full swing and yet the PC Police continue to rush to their aid when someone points out the obvious.</p>matlabfreak commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e550525bbe88342007-04-18T16:32:16Z2008-02-14T04:50:04Zmatlabfreakhttp://matlabfreak.blogspot.comTrep: I was willing to give some leftist sources the benefit of the doubt because sometimes their inclinations actually are...<p>Trep: I was willing to give some leftist sources the benefit of the doubt because sometimes their inclinations actually are in line with yours on this issue, but for different reasons:</p>
<p>The sources NOT related to the Hebron house were all talking about how IDF military orders have been used to keep a chokehold on the Palestinian economy, and promote settler land ownership. Thus, they have focused on how the laws affect Palestinians, and not settlers, and lament on the lack of government enforcement on settlers.</p>
<p>As I was looking for evidence of enforcement - and what is legally sanctioned - it seemed reasonable to give them at least a little credence.</p>
<p>*shrugs* Either way, it's a tough problem. It seems (based on some legal source) that the IDF has not made their military orders available in any collated form, so others have begun to do so (they are public domain, but just aren't put together anywhere). I agree wholeheartedly that some transparency on the part of the IDF, the MoD, and the government would go a long ways to improving our understanding of these issues.</p>
<p>If you know any lawyers in Israel who specialize in this kind of issue, it may be illuminating to look at Maj. Mishnayot's book (as mentioned above, although he's not a Lt-Col.), as he's a judge in the IDF and probably has both the most information and relatively little overt bias on the issue.</p>
<p>I guess my only point in that long post is that <i>no one</i> seems to have hard information on the complex web of laws affecting land transactions in the shtachim, let alone data on how they are enforced.</p>
<p>*bows*</p>
<p>Ender</p>treppenwitz commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e5503ed33088332007-04-18T08:45:02Z2008-02-14T04:50:19Ztreppenwitzhttp://www.treppenwitz.comRami... You would be hard pressed to find a more unqualified individual. Mike... You are still fixated on a tangential...<p>Rami... You would be hard pressed to find a more unqualified individual.</p>
<p>Mike... You are still fixated on a tangential issue and using it to justify your position. Look, I think we can agree that you wouldn't ask a lapsed Catholic to make decisions about the value of Catholic holy places. I think we can also agree that a non-practicing Muslim's opinion should not carry the same weight as a practici9ng one when it comes to the value and access to their holy places. SO why is it you feel it is a valid argument to point to the secular left of Israel's opinion that Hevron is not worth holding onto or protecting access to when almost half the country (meaning the religious) feel exactly the opposite. My kids will have to serve in the army to protect ALL Israeli lifestyles and viewpoints. They can't say that they will not patrol Israeli beaches or stand guard outside discos/clubs because they are mostly for the secular. This idea that you can pick and chose what is worth protecting based on your personal ideology is total crap! Until such time as this stops being a Jewish State, Jews should have safe access to their holy places. That it offends Muslim sensibilities that we want to pray In Hevron at the Maarat HaMachpelah and in Bethlehem at Rachel's Tomb and many other sites that are now in largely Arab-controlled areas is really the problem... not our desire to do so. The Temple mount is in the midst of a Jewish area (it lies sandwiched between Mount Scopus, Mount of Olives, The Jewish Quarter, etc. What would happen if we suggested that they should 'Just give up on praying at the Al Aksa Mosque because it offends us that they are doing so? Please stick to the issues I raised and leave your ideology at home.</p>
<p>Bob... Yes, I misread you. Thanks for clarifying.</p>
<p>K Newman... You might be right. I just get so tired of the Arabs always getting a pass on bad behavior. At what point do we get to say "If this bothers you we're sorry but your lifestyle is just not compatible with the rest of the world. If this is a deal breaker you'll have to just go elsewhere".</p>
<p>tnspr569... Thanks.</p>
<p>matlabfreak... While I appreciate your effort and the time it must have taken you to compile your comment, I can't really take most of it seriously because of the sources. Peace Now and B'Tzelem have been discredited for publishing deliberately inaccurate/fraudulent information that anything coming from them is a non-starter. Also, I share your frustration that more balanced and/or official sources are much more difficult to locate. This is one of the reasons the defense establishment can operate selectively. You can't very well challenge something if you can't find ample legal backing for your position in the public domain or through 'Freedom of Information' type sources.</p>
<p>PP... Please see my comment to Mark. The only way one can see a Jew's wanting access to Hevron as a provocation is if one does not see Jewish access to holy sites as a legitimate right. this may be a position you can defend in a discussion of what should be done in the future. But right now while this is a Jewish State and these sites are nominally in our control, a real estate transaction that could help safeguard Jews who want to travel to a holy site cannot be seen as a provocation.</p>PP commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e5503ed21088332007-04-15T16:02:29Z2008-02-14T04:50:07ZPPhttp://goingslightlymad.blogspot.comSure. I thought you did a good job at explaining an extremely complicated and multi-layered situation. Hence the directive for...<p>Sure.</p>
<p>I thought you did a good job at explaining an extremely complicated and multi-layered situation. Hence the directive for a scotch. </p>
<p>I personally have longstanding, and mixed opinions and experiences when it comes to Hevron and the community there and fully appreciate the complexities. Therefore the only one of your answers I would outright disagree with you on would be regarding the issue of provocation: The very nature of Hevron settlement has become more "provocative" than almost anywhere else in the country- and there are many conscious and unconscious recipients of this provocation, not just Hevron's Arabs, but the Israeli Govt, the wider public and our patrolling forces. And to entirely dismiss the provocation argument with (fair) points such as "the Arabs take everything we do as provocation" or "the Government hate the settlers" nevertheless absolves the more extreme elements of the Hevron community in a manner that frankly, they are not entitled to be absolved. </p>
<p> <br />
If anything, as you illustrate, this case in point could have provided our government with the opportunity to finally form a coherent policy vis a vis Hevron. But they haven't, and they won't, because they are pathetic cowards who aren't brave enough to start clearing up the messes and mistakes of the past and provide a safe future for the country. And as long as the Hevron issues remain murky, similar cases will clearly continue to arise until the formation of the People's Front of Judaea, etc: I sense that day isn't far off<br />
</p>matlabfreak commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e55052628888342007-04-15T09:31:41Z2008-02-14T04:51:14Zmatlabfreakhttp://matlabfreak.blogspot.comDavid: I have spent a large number of hours scouring various places for sources, so please forgive the relative paucity...<p>David: I have spent a large number of hours scouring various places for sources, so please forgive the relative paucity of them; there's not much of substance to work with.</p>
<p>Regarding the legality of the transaction:</p>
<p>The Defense Minister's grounds for the planned eviction are based upon a 1967 IDF military order: "Order Concerning Land Transactions (Judea & Samaria) (No. 25)" (Some translations instead use "Injuction" instead of "Order" and/or "Regarding" instead of "Concerning", if you try Googling.) Despite my best efforts, I have <i>not</i> been able to find a complete text of the order in either Hebrew or English; I suspect it's out there somewhere, but I am by no means a legal expert with such resources at my fingertips.</p>
<p>The best I've been able to see is the description given by the Shalom Achshav letter the day after people moved into the house (yes, I know, Shalom Achshav isn't the best source, but <i>no one</i> else has information on it). I quote:</p>
<p>"4.<br />
As well you know, real estate sales transactions to Israelis and Israeli corporations on the West Bank in crowded Palestinian urban areas require the approval of the Minister of Defense and the Civil Administration, and without such approval, no transaction can be valid.</p>
<p>5.<br />
Para. 2 of the Injunction regarding land transactions (Judea and Samaria) (no. 25) 5727-1976 states as follows:<br />
“No person, whether himself or through someone else, whether directly or indirectly, shall carry out a transaction regarding land unless it is authorized by the competent authorities.”</p>
<p>6.<br />
Para. 3 of the abovementioned Injunction states that any transaction carried out without the approval of the competent authorities shall be considered invalid.</p>
<p>7.<br />
Israeli Cabinet Ruling no. 1077 authorized the Ministers’ Defense Committee to adopt resolutions regarding the above paragraphs and in the matter of this issue, Ministers’ Committee Resolution 9/b of 1979 (6.11.79) states, that the competent authority for approving a purchase in a local population center is the Minister of Defense."</p>
<p>For one, this explains why most transactions in the territories don't need direct approval from the MoD (including your home), as they are not in 'crowded Palestinian urban areas'. For another, it suggests that the number of relevant cases - which one might claim are too numerous to track - is actually quite manageable, as it does not apply to every land transaction in the territories.</p>
<p>(Note: I understand the substance of your other claim - how can one track laws that AREN'T enforced - but I respectfully disagree in this case. Legal transactions all have paper trails, as opposed to speeding drivers. It should not be terribly difficult to assemble a representative sampling of relevant cases that fall under this law and see whether the MoD has been enforcing them. One needn't even give me statistics - if you could find the number of times it HAS been enforced, and even find me a comparable number of exceptions, I would gladly concede the point. I have little doubt you're right on the enforcement issue; I just would like hard data rather than speculation.)</p>
<p>On the other hand, the same order is mentioned twice in the Sasson report recommendations in 2005:<br />
"Acquisition of Land by Israelis in Judea, Samaria and Gaza requires the written approval of the Minister of Defense. The Minister of Defense may delegate this authority only to his Deputy.</p>
<p>The Order Concerning Land Transactions (Judea & Samaria) (No. 25), 1967 shall be amended so that the government resolution is implemented in security legislation.<br />
...<br />
I. The Order Concerning Land Transactions (Judea & Samaria) (No. 25), 1967 shall be amended. Acquisition of land by Israelis in Judea, Samaria and Gaza territories shall require the written consent of the Head of the Civil Administration."</p>
<p>This obviously raises some questions: How exactly in the original order phrased? Does it apply to all transactions as implied by Sasson, or is the Shalom Achshav interpretation accurate? Why is it being said that the laws should be 'amended' for enforcement? It seems from the Shalom Achshav claims that they were enforceable by 1979 at the latest. The Sasson report was 26 years later.</p>
<p>I don't have an answer for these questions - if you have any information, I would be deeply indebted. It seems like the law <i>could</i> be as far reaching as you imply, and yet was either not enforced or not able to be enforced legally as of 2005... or it's a much more specific law (at least as defined by later legislation) that may have been enforceable since 1967 or 1979.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.btselem.org/Download/200205_Land_Grab_Eng.pdf" rel="nofollow">This</a> B'tselem report, thereabouts of page 60-65 claims that the election of Likud in 1982 significantly relaxed the originally broad restrictions of Order No. 25 to allow private individuals to carry out transactions and the like. This likely explains some of the seeming contradictions I've seen. I don't know how this was legally enacted, though. It seems like a good book to read on this subject would be Major Aharon Mishnayot's work (translated as "Planning, Building, and Land Laws in Judea and Samaria", but I haven't a clue what the official Hebrew title is), but I'm afraid I haven't been able to see any information of it - I suspect it's in Israeli law libraries, which I'm thousands of miles away from. *smiles*</p>
<p>An interesting side note: most of the sources I've seen online are leftists who are highly critical of M.O. 25, arguing that though it may have originally existed to curtail Jewish settlement, has worked to stifle Palestinian transactions/activity in the territories - and they claim that the order was later modified to allow settlement activity. These modifications have not been explained anywhere I can see, so it is difficult to ascertain whether or not Peretz's arguments hold water.</p>
<p>I think it really boils down to the text of the original law, and any amendments that have been made since then. Unfortunately, the papers (both right and left wing) have just been parroting the words of the MoD press release, which is less than helpful.</p>
<p>Hope this makes sense; it's awfully late here, and I've spent far too long reading legal jargon which I barely understand in English, let alone Hebrew. </p>
<p>Ender</p>tnspr569 commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e550525b6788342007-04-15T06:53:35Z2008-02-14T04:50:01Ztnspr569Excellent post, Mr.B!<p>Excellent post, Mr.B!</p>K Newman commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e550525be488342007-04-15T03:52:38Z2008-02-14T04:50:05ZK NewmanDavid, "If Christians were regularly attacked on their way to worship at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and...<p>David,</p>
<p><i>"If Christians were regularly attacked on their way to worship at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and Christians decided to create a safe corridor for pilgrims by buying up houses along the route to the Church, I think most of the world would be far more understanding."</i></p>
<p>I'm not so sure about that. The Western Left is overwhelmingly anti-Christian (too many restrictions on their pagan ways) and is a constant target for them. That, plus the Pals are the darlings of the Left, any Christian group that tried to build a safety corridor would end up being branded the same way as Israel.</p>
<p>BTW, I was in Bethlehem last May. There aren't many Christians left there. The Christians that live in the city are mostly Eastern Orthodox Arabs that are being driven out by the Muslims. For now, the Pals are making too much money off of Christian tourists to mess with them, but we'll see how much longer that lasts. </p>
<p>The difference between Bethlehem and the surrounding Israeli controlled areas is like night and day. I imagine Hebron is the same way. I was glad to get back on the other side of the security wall and have no plans to go back. </p>Bob commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e550525b7f88342007-04-14T23:29:52Z2008-02-14T04:50:02ZBobhttp://lostfart.blogspot.com/Oh yes, and I must bow to the wisdom of Wikipedia in all matters religious. I repent! (In this case...<p>Oh yes, and I must bow to the wisdom of Wikipedia in all matters religious. <b>I repent!</b></p>
<p>(In this case you would be right to assume sarcasm.)</p>Bob commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e5503ed58e88332007-04-14T23:26:01Z2008-02-14T04:50:40ZBobhttp://lostfart.blogspot.com/David, I think you somehow misread the second paragraph of my comment (perhaps thinking I was being sarcastic?). I was...<p>David, I think you somehow misread the second paragraph of my comment (perhaps thinking I was being sarcastic?).</p>
<p>I was merely saying:<br />
(1) Israel has nothing to gain by appeasement (since it isn't Israel's actions but its existence that the Arabs find so offensive); and <br />
(2) Israel has a moral obligation to uphold all legally binding contracts (since doing so ultimately benefits even the Arabs).</p>
<p>Explanation of that second point: The worst thing you can do to a child is let him always have his own way (Proverbs 13:24). The government of Israel does the Arabs no good by acquiescing to their demands whenever they don't get their own way.</p>mike commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e550525b6c88342007-04-13T15:10:13Z2008-02-14T04:50:01ZmikeDavid, I take your accusation that I was disingenuous as a sign that I was unintentionally abstruse. I will try...<p>David, </p>
<p>I take your accusation that I was disingenuous as a sign that I was unintentionally abstruse. I will try to clarify myself. </p>
<p>First, I didn't set up a straw man argument regarding the legality of the sale, as I did not argue against that legality. What I intended to do was to explain why arguments that seem so convincing to you receive no sympathy from leftists. </p>
<p>I contended that you brought your own emotional stance into your explanation, but that was merely an aside. My main contention was that the settlers are passionate about arguments like the legality of the sale because it fortifies their view that they are a beseiged minority. You support my contention further when you note that Arabs in Tel Aviv, or Christians attacked in Bethlehem for that matter, would be treated differently. Please understand that I am not arguing against the position that settlers are a beseiged minority. Yes, Arabs would be treated differently.</p>
<p>However, the very arguments that seem the most compelling to settlers, like the legality of the sale, or the precept, "Jews don't expel Jews," or the general prejudice that Jews not be allowed to live among Arabs, cannot move leftists to sympathize. Leftists see such arguments as rallying settlers to fight (sometimes violently) for their cause. Regardless of the underlying truth, the arguments are therefore viewed as being propaganda for uncondonable actions. Leftist react not with sympathy but with scorn, and moreover with ridicule, to the extent that arguments about legality are used to justify lawlessness.</p>
<p>The point I was trying to make was summarized in my last sentence, which I will reword, as follows: If you are a leftist who doesn't believe that Hebron is worth fighting for (or dying for), the legality of the transaction will not sway you to support Jewish occupation of the Hebron house. The issue is ideology, not legality. (By the way, "leftists" won by a landslide in the last elections because of the settlers' lawlessness displayed during the Gaza pull-out. If there is more violence by settlers in Hebron, it will only serve the Labor Party.) <br />
</p>Rami commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e550525f4788342007-04-13T09:50:45Z2008-02-14T04:50:38ZRamiQuestion No offense but does Mr. Peretz need a pair of binoculars to see anything? I get this feeling he...<p><b>Question</b><br />
No offense but does Mr. Peretz need a pair of binoculars to see <i>anything</i>? I get this feeling he has X-Ray vision and can see what most of us can’t :-) <br />
</p>treppenwitz commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e55052609d88342007-04-13T08:28:11Z2008-02-14T04:50:50Ztreppenwitzhttp://www.treppenwitz.comSafranit... My anger is what made me take a few days to collect my thoughts and focus on the facts...<p>Safranit... My anger is what made me take a few days to collect my thoughts and focus on the facts of the case. I wish others would do the same rather than spewing their hatred and emotional rants.</p>
<p>PP... Not sure if your comment indicated agreement of displeasure with the post. Wish you would elaborate.</p>
<p>Matlabfreak... Trying to quantify that would be like trying to quantify how often speed limits are enforced and how equally they are enforced across the entire population. I know that I didn't seek Ministry of Defense approval when I bought my house and so far nobody has planned my eviction.</p>
<p>JJ... I respectfully disagree. In this case the security of worshipers who want to visit one of the holiest sites in Judaism becomes a valid legal argument. Also, deciding the validity of land/property sales based on religion or ethnicity is patently illegal.</p>
<p>dfb1968... I wish we could throw the whole bunch of them out and start from scratch.</p>
<p>Allan... Sadly, Israel's laws are such a hopeless mishmash of Ottoman, British Mandate and modern laws that the government can pick and choose what they want to enforce. Add to that the lack of a constitution and a Supreme court with nearly limitless arbitrary powers... well, it isn't pretty being on the right.</p>
<p>Bob... In this case you'll have to take up your argument with Wikipedia (the link I provided) since I know very little of Christian theology. That aside, one can't reasonably make the argument that legal decisions should be made according to what might be seen by the Arabs as a provocation. EVERYTHING we do is seen as a provocation! Our very existence as a sovereign nation is their stated reason for their open belligerence... so what do you suggest, that we pack up and close the country because it might offend Muslim sensibilities? Where does that stop?</p>
<p>ari kinsberg... I do my writing early in the morning and my drinking late at night. I find that this clear separation of pleasures ensures that neither suffers.</p>
<p>Mike... You have built a classic straw-man argument: You've stated (incorrectly) that my statements about religious beliefs are in any way connected to the legality of the land sale... and then you proceed to tear down that premise. I mentioned in passing the religious significance of the Cave of the Patriarchs only to explain why Jewish worshipers would find it necessary to pass by this particular property. I did this to make sure that everyone understood that the choice of this location for a property purchase was neither random nor provocative. If Christians were regularly attacked on their way to worship at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and Christians decided to create a safe corridor for pilgrims by buying up houses along the route to the Church, I think most of the world would be far more understanding. Please reread the post and stop making deliberately disingenuous arguments.</p>Mike commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e5503ed49488332007-04-13T07:09:42Z2008-02-14T04:50:32ZMikeSomeone who argues for defending a site by military force based on its being the burial place of Adam and...<p>Someone who argues for defending a site by military force based on its being the burial place of Adam and Eve has not "checked his emotions at the door." I would suggest the following analysis as being a more impartial view of the debate. Settlers made it clear during the Gaza expulsion of 2005 that they would resort to violent, lawless actions to oppose the government's efforts (legal by definition) to reduce Jewish presence in the West Bank. Arguments like the legality of the Hebron house purchase help to fortify the settlers' resolve to take violent actions, because these arguments support their view that they are an oppressed, besieged minority. The slogan, "Jews don't evict Jews" was similar propaganda. For the Jews sitting in Tel Aviv who don't want their children to fight in the defense of Adam and Eve's graves, the arguments are seen as the propaganda they are. </p>
<p>The argument is not over the legality of the house purchase. It's over the ideology of whether Jews should fight for Hebron. </p>ari kinsberg commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e55052607f88342007-04-13T02:27:51Z2008-02-14T04:50:49Zari kinsberghttp://agmk.blogspot.com"as soon as Jewish owners took possession of the property, loud protestations of fraud and theft were arguably the former...<p>"as soon as Jewish owners took possession of the property, loud protestations of fraud and theft were arguably the former owner's last resort against an official death sentence or an unofficial lynching."</p>
<p>i just read recently that often this is an understanding that is agreed upon by jewish purchasers in these types of transactions.</p>
<p>"I hope you had a stiff drink after writing that!"</p>
<p>i think he had a stiff drink before writing it to clear his mind</p>Bob commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e5503ed31b88332007-04-13T01:03:41Z2008-02-14T04:50:18ZBobhttp://lostfart.blogspot.com/David, the only disagreement I have is with your statement "the traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam agree four Biblical...<p>David, the only disagreement I have is with your statement "the traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam agree four Biblical couple are buried [at the Cave of the Patriarchs]: (1) Adam and Eve; (2) Abraham and Sarah; (3) Isaac and Rebekah; (4) Jacob and Leah." The burial place of Adam and Eve is not a Christian tradition I'm aware of (though no doubt there's some Christian sect that's claims to know that location).</p>
<p>Also, I would point out (to those who think it important that Israel not do anthing to provoke Arab resentment) that the very existence of Jews anywhere is offensive to the Arabs. Israel's rewarding those who behave like unruly children only encourages them to behave worse. You would do well (and do the Arabs good) to expect them to live by the rules of civilized society. It's time they learned that real estate transactions are binding on both parties.</p>Allan commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e5503ed49288332007-04-12T15:35:11Z2008-02-14T04:50:32ZAllanPolitics and security considerations aside, from a strickly legal perspective (based on US Jurisprudence) there are a number of elements...<p>Politics and security considerations aside, from a strickly legal perspective (based on US Jurisprudence) there are a number of elements that constitute a binding contract. The primary is consideration and accord. Here, it appears, this key element was met. There was a seller who was wanted to sell and buyers who wanted to buy. Money was exchanged and title was conveyed. The deal must stand. But then again, this is Israel and every transaction is subject to political scrutiny especially when it involves Jews and Arabs.</p>dfb1968 commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e550525b6b88342007-04-12T15:08:02Z2008-02-14T04:50:01Zdfb1968Trep, My answer to every question would be "I don't know". But it seems to me that the real problem...<p>Trep,</p>
<p>My answer to every question would be "I don't know". But it seems to me that the real problem is that our current political leadership is so weak that they will do anything to take political heat off of themselves.</p>
<p>What did a wise man from Indiana once say: "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for everything." Okay, maybe not a wise man, but a good singer nonetheless.</p>JJ commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e5503ed28188332007-04-12T14:16:35Z2008-02-14T04:50:11ZJJDavid, you've provided a concise explanation of why the legality of the transaction is not the issue.<p>David, you've provided a concise explanation of why the legality of the transaction is not the issue.<br />
</p>matlabfreak commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e550525b5b88342007-04-12T13:57:27Z2008-02-14T04:50:01Zmatlabfreakhttp://matlabfreak.blogspot.comA good job at trying to calmly present the information, David. I think the issue really boils down to this:...<p>A good job at trying to calmly present the information, David. I think the issue really boils down to this: You discussed enforcement of the requirement for Defense Ministry approval of sales to Jews, and suggested it rarely occurs and then only for political purposes.</p>
<p>Do you have numbers on this? I am not sure exactly what jurisdiction the law has (all of the West Bank/east Jerusalem? Just certain military jurisdictions?), and more importantly, I haven't seen anywhere - right wing or left - quantification of just how much the law is enforced. If one can show convincingly that this is motivated by political and not security/etc. concerns, <i>and</i> that as a rule, enforcement does not occur in less volatile situations... well, then I rather think the issue would be solved. Until now, though, all I've seen are unsourced claims about enforcement and anecdotal evidence. I don't doubt that you're probably right, but I'd like something more quantitative to really assess the situation.</p>
<p>One last issue: You make a compelling point that the Jews who bought the house undoubtedly did not mean it as a provocation. Unfortunately, that is not the real concern. Regardless of the intentions of the buyers, the Defense Minister must also look to the way in which it is received by the surrounding population... and <i>they</i> undoubtedly see it as a provocation.</p>
<p>I would not go so far as to say that every time an Arab gets upset we should invalidate land sales, but the fact its being <i>felt</i> as a provocation is important information that affects the security situation in the region. If the Defense Minister could offer reasonable proof that the security issues raised by such an action are significant, he would be justified in signing an evacuation order.</p>
<p>Ender</p>PP commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e5503ed1bf88332007-04-12T11:37:24Z2008-02-14T04:50:05ZPPhttp://goingslightlymad.blogspot.comI hope you had a stiff drink after writing that! (I'm sure there will be other commenters with more time...<p>I hope you had a stiff drink after writing that!</p>
<p>(I'm sure there will be other commenters with more time to say what I might have responded) </p>Safranit commented on 'Question & Answer Time'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341c581e53ef00e5503ed45488332007-04-12T10:50:43Z2008-02-14T04:50:31ZSafranithttp://israhome.blogsome.comThank you David for that analysis. I try to avoid politics (to the point that is possible in Israel), but...<p>Thank you David for that analysis. I try to avoid politics (to the point that is possible in Israel), but this situation is killing me! How dare Peretz do this act of stupidity...</p>
<p>This whole thing has me so angry, the only "bright side" is to note that anyone who has acted against the good of the Jewish People has been "taken care of" by external sources (meaning the One Above) and hopefully he will either get tossed out of politics by elections or a nice little scandal......</p>