A man alone who is valiant and determined

you think its ok for Israel to reject registering cultivated land, for racist reasons?

interesting.

 

I think it's ok when Israel is obeying the laws in the West Bank.

 

Israel is VIOLATING Jordanian laws in the West Bank.

 

Israel respecting and obeying the laws in the West Bank.

 

no, they changed the requirements, so that the govt. could STEAL land.

 

No they didnt change, they respecting and obeying the laws in the West Bank. As I already showed you, but you prefer to ignore it.

 

Jordan and Britain didn't have a 50% requirement, that's a new requirement by Israel so they can steal land.

 

Israel does not have 50% requirement.
Israel is obeying and respecting the laws in the West Bank.

 

so you're calling Btselem and Peace Now "liars"???

 

"Peace Now" is using information that doesnt distinguish between Arab and Jewish lands.
"Betselem" provided the Ottoman law, which Israel is applying. Like I showed you.

 

Peace Now says Israel requires farmers cultivate at least 50% of a parcel of unregistered land for 10 years, to register is as his own.

Are you calling Peace Now "liars"?

Israel has changed the Jordanian law, and Peace Now & Btselem both say this.

you calling them both "liars"?

 

So please provide a government documents that show what you are saying. If you wont do it, then you cant refer it as fact.

 

so you're calling Peace Now and Btselem "liars".

 

I guess you have zero evidence for that law you're saying it's a fact. But you still refer it as fact- intresting.
I alraedy answered this question.

 

you're calling Btselem and Peace Now "liars", simply because they report facts that you don't like.

 

They are distorting the facts, and the evidence for it is that you dont have any evidence for this law you refer as fact.

When "Peace Now" is using an information that doesnt distinguish between Arab and Jewish land, and then refer to the whole provate lands as "Arab"- it is a distortion of facts!

 

Israel still has the 50% requirement, you can deny it all you like.

 

I cant deny something that doesnt exist! and your persistent of not provide any evidence for it just shows just rainforce it.

 

The cultivation requirement according to the Israeli interpretation
In the context of the declaration policy, Israel applied a much stricter criterion than that
of the reasonable cultivation doctrine that was set by the Mandatory courts and applied
in the West Bank under Jordanian rule as well.112 According to the Israeli interpretation,
in the case of a parcel that is mostly rocky and the cultivated area is located in a distinct
part, the cultivated area must be distinguished from the rest of the parcel. In such a
case, the rocky part of the parcel will be declared state land, while the cultivated area
will be defined as private property. In the common case where it is not possible to
distinguish between the cultivated parts and the rocky land, the farmer must prove that
he cultivated at least 50 percent of the total area of the parcel. If the combined area of
all the cultivated patches is under 50 percent, the entire parcel is declared state land,
leaving the farmer with no rights to it whatsoever.113

The requirement that 50 percent of the area of the parcel must be cultivated does not
appear in the legislation applying in the region and contradicts the Mandatory Supreme
Court’s interpretation of article 78 of the Land Code. In applying this requirement to the
West Bank, Israel relied on rulings of Israeli courts in the 1960s.

At that time, land settlements were undertaken within Israel. In the context of
these land settlements, the government sought to maximize the amount of Jewishowned
land in the Galilee. As in the West Bank several decades later, the objective
in the Galilee was to get hold of as much land as possible in order to enable Jewish
settlement. In many cases, Arab residents of the Galilee claimed ownership of
miri land based on possession and cultivation of scattered arable patches in rocky
land.

In their rulings, the District Courts accepted the State Attorney’s Office’s
interpretation of article 78 of the Land Code, whereby in the case of cultivation of
scattered patches of land, the claimant for ownership of the parcel must prove that
he cultivated a substantial portion of its area. Within a few years, this interpretation
was adjusted and altered, until the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that under article 78
of the Land Code, at least 50 percent of the area of the parcel had to be cultivated.114
Subsequently, the Supreme Court applied the 50-percent rule to the West Bank as
well, in rejecting a petition filed by a Palestinian from the village Beit Ijza contesting
the Custodian’s decision to declare a parcel that he held as state land.115

This action
forms part of a broader phenomenon, whereby practices first formulated in the
context of land settlements inside the Green Line were subsequently applied to the
West Bank.
Muhammad Salah ’Ommar al-‘Ommar and Three Others v. State of Israel; CA 148/62, State of Israel v.
Sa’id Salah

 

This is talking about what Israel did in the Galilee. The Galilee is not the West Bank, thus you cant assume that it is been used in the West Bank, while it talks about what Israel did in the Galilee.

 

the decision of the Supreme Court is being applied in the West Bank.

 

Moderators my thread has been hijacked... the title of this threat :

A man alone who is valiant and determined...

 

The case that Betselem say that "the 50% rule" apply is not right. I found the verdict of this case (the name of the "Palestinian" is Sabri Muhammad Ahmad Agriib), and the verdict says that:

As you can see, the judges:
1. Beinisch
2. Barak
3. Procaccia
Determined according to the laws of belligerent occupation, and not like Betselem says.

 

link?????

 

The actuall verdict is in Hebrew only, but the judges relied on other verdicts with the same subject:
http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/04/570/079/A14/04079570.a14.pdf

As it says: