Photo Credit: YouTube
Legal scholar Eugene Kontorovich

In a very important article on Commentary’s online site, legal scholar Eugene Kontorovich takes on those who immediately began bloviating about Israel’s “land appropriation” or “land grab” when rumors spread that Israel was about to make some change in the status of a certain tract of land in the Gush Etzion region.

The United States and the United Nations, of course, both condemned Israel for “appropriating” the land, as did untold numbers of commentators, journalists and anti-Israel activists.

Advertisement

There were even some who place themselves on the pro-Israel side of the ledger who condemned the move. None of these critics bothered to determine whether Israel had done anything approaching what it was for which the Jewish state was being blasted.

As Kontorovich explains, what Israel did was declare specific open, uncultivated areas near what is known as the “Green Line” as state land. Doing so did not constitute an “appropriation” of land that belongs to Palestinian Arabs, and it would not result in an expansion of those dreaded Israeli “settlements.”

Why?

Because, as the legal scholar explains, Israel’s determination that the land in question is state land is simply a “factual, administrative finding that does not change the ownership of land.”

Much of the land in the  region southeast of Jerusalem has no private owners. Defining that land as state land requires the determination, “based on extensive investigation,” that the land does not have a private owner.

An “appropriation,” on the other hand, involves taking something that is someone else’s.

A determination that land is “state land” is a factual finding made by administrators and it does not change the ownership of land.

Perhaps even more importantly, “Israel’s designation of the land as state land can be challenged administratively and judicially, as Palestinian claimants often do, and sometimes prevail,” Kontorovich explains further.

In other words, nothing has been taken from anyone, or given to anyone. The “state land” determination does not create any new facts on the ground or change ownership. So back off Obama, Tzipi Livni, the New York Times and all the others who  jumped on the bandwagon without bothering to find out if what they were complaining about is true.

So, the next time you hear that Israel is “appropriating” “Palestinian land,” please check out the legal determination made and make sure you know what are the accurate terms for the action (if any) taking place.

Advertisement

SHARE
Previous articleGirls of the IDF’s “Amazon” Unit
Next articleNetanyahu Mourns Joan Rivers’ Death
Lori Lowenthal Marcus is a contributor to the JewishPress.com. A graduate of Harvard Law School, she previously practiced First Amendment law and taught in Philadelphia-area graduate and law schools. You can reach her by email: Lori@JewishPressOnline.com

14 COMMENTS

  1. UN Security Council Committee vote on draft (A/C.4/68/L.17).

    Extract: “Reaffirms that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan are illegal and an obstacle to peace and economic and social development…”

  2. It was published that way by politicians to lend creadence to the Hamas owned Palistanian group to enforce the belief that because they defend themselves against Palistanian rockets they are evil and even steal land.
    .

  3. This land is not even 'state land' – rather, it is land belonging to the TRADITIONAL CUSTODIANSHIP OF ISRAEL! So, on these grounds – no appropriation by Israel is possible as it is just not logical that traditional owners could ever 'appropriate' land belonging to them. The side who is trying to say that Israel 'appropriated' the land is wrong just as much as the side who is trying to monopolize the situation with the equally falicious argument that the land is 'state land' is wrong.

  4. Siuyin Ho According to your occupation, you are somehow related to or sympathize with the First Nations cause. I don't understand how you can take the side of an oppressor. If you're indeed sympathetic with the First Nations cause or have witnessed the trauma firsthand, you should know better than to side with colonialists who will stop at nothing to exploit the defenseless. At least the First Nations could put up an armed struggle!

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...