The good people of Israel who are equally appalled by this court, you have my
sympathies. For the Palestinians, it could not be more clear, you are on your own.

Civil disobedience, en masse...all of you.

so how "rare" is an 'Arab' property owner in EJ that doesn't actually live on the property? Would absentee landlords also come under this law?

If so, then it's wrong no matter where the property is.

as it's the Israeli government stealing from Arabs.

There's a difference between legal and right.

As opposed to obtaining sovereignty. Sovereignty is legitimately obtained in a war started by the other side, which is why the taking of land from Jordan in 47-49 or 67 was legitimate. So Israel legitimately has sovereignty over East Jerusalem. But taking sovereignty is different from taking possession. Possession can be taken without compensation only in a very limited circumstance such as active hostility or tax default. The people in East Jerusalem aren't engaged in active hostilities against Israel. And as far as I know, the law isn't about failure to pay taxes. Another exception would be actually abandoned land when the owner can't be determined or found. Again, that isn't what is happening in Jerusalem as far as I know. The law "deems" the land abandoned and escheated to the state even if the owners are known. Taking ownership of land (as opposed to exercising sovereignty over it) without paying for it is theft.

And by the way no, one cannot gain territory through conquest, no matter what side of the war you fall on. Been that way a long time. Granted, you can still beat the crap out of a nation and force a treaty to "peacefully" acquire the territory (ask Tibet, they'll tell you about it) but you can't just roll in and go "mine now!" You can also pull the "they voted to join me" trick that Russia is doing in crimea. But yeah. You can't just outright conquer.

besides. I wasn't asking about ligal minutae - law does not set the concepts pf "right and wrong." What makes this wrong, aranthus (becuase, clearly israel has decided it's legal)

Sovereignty means supreme and independent authority in governance. Sovereignty over territory means the rule over territory. Conquest is the acquisition of territory in war. Sovereignty can be obtained by conquest. You're just wrong about gaining territory by conquest in a defensive war.

In any event, I wasn't talking about legality. I used the word legitimate. That's not the same thing as legal. Legal just means that the state acted according to its own law. Legitimate means that the law was within the moral power of the state to act. Outside of limited circumstances that don't exist in this case, it isn't legitimate for a state to take private property without paying for it.

Thus, you cannot claim sovereignty over such territory. Period. This has been affirmed and reaffirmed numerous times in international conferences and agreements for at least one hundred and thirty years. Like I said, you can still fuck someone in a treaty, but you just can't go "I marched in so this is mine." It doesn't matter the nature of your role in the war - Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iran didn't get to claim chunks of Iraq. China and the US didn't get to claim chunks of Japan. The United Kingdom didn't get pieces of Germany. Vietnam won no claim over parts of the United States.

Britain didn't get pieces of Germany after World War Two? Well Poland did. The Soviet Union did. It got parts of Czechoslovakia too. China didn't get parts of Japan? It got all of Manchuria, which was Japanese territory before the war. The US got Pacific islands. Treaties and such may or may not say what you claim, but the actions of states is what counts, and the reality of state action has been that an aggressor state that loses a war suffers the consequence, including loss of territory.

Prior to that treaty, the international, legitimate boundary mirrored that of the pre-war lines, though Poland considered the territory Polish - with Soviet tanks and guns backing the claim up through the cold war.

And you must be dating "the war" starting at 1941 - Manchuria was Chinese territory, invaded and taken by Japan in 1931. it was returned to China after Japan surrendered.

The Pacific islands were already "US Possessions." They too returned to US control after the Japanese were driven off of them.

Now, for the situation of East Prussia, there's something that's almost exactly what you're trying to defend; A slaughter / expulsion of nearly 2 million people, followed by a rush of Polish immigrants - 'settlers' if you will - who then voted to split East Prussia between Mother Poland and Savior Russia. Again, backed by the most powerful military force on the continent at the time.

This however, did not create a right to conquest. if you wish to continue telling me otherwise, I would happily look at the laws allowing acquisition of territory through conquest that you have at hand.

It’s been reaffirmed by the UN (see resolutions 252, 267, 271, 298, 465, 471) over and over again that Israel has no jurisdiction there.

(From res 476, snip)
Reaffirming that acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,

From res 476, snip)
3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

So to summarize: Israel can’t expropriate a square inch, nor can it transfer a single Israeli into occupied East Jerusalem.

And yes, all of that theft was committed without compensation.

That's the rub for the court. If a nation is founded on theft it's difficult to outlaw said theft without potentially overturning the nation.

And when all of the justices own property that was likewise stolen, that's a pretty big incentive not to rock the boat.

which allowed exceptional higher compensation without the need to prove damages, but left the rest of the law intact.

Tonight, 15 April 2015, the Israeli Supreme Court delivered a 233-page decision rejecting most parts of a petition filed by human rights organizations and political movements against the Anti-Boycott Law.



The law, enacted in July 2011, imposes sanctions on any individual or entity that calls for an economic, cultural or academic boycott of Israel’s West Bank settlements or of Israel itself. It allows entities to sue and to win compensation from individuals or organizations that have called for a boycott. It also permits the Finance Minister to impose severe economic sanctions on Israeli individuals, groups, and institutions that receive state support if they call for or participate in a boycott.



The organizations that petitioned against the law harshly criticized the Supreme Court's decision:



"Today, the Supreme Court refrained from doing what was essential - to defend freedom of expression. The Anti-Boycott Law is a law to ‘shut mouths’. Its sole purpose is to silence legitimate criticism. The Court's decision allows sanctions on freedom of expression and the right to political action concerning hotly contested issues of debate."



Ma'ayan Dak of the Coalition of Women for Peace, who used to call for boycott and divestment before the enactment of the law, stated that, "Boycotts and divestment are recognized around the world as legitimate, non-violent tools of protest. In its decision, the Supreme Court approved the silencing and the restriction of legitimate protest to criticize and act to change Israeli policy."



Adalah Attorney Sawsan Zaher stated that, "This arbitrary law harms Palestinians more than others because they are on the frontlines of struggling against the Occupation and the violation of the human rights of their people under Occupation in the West Bank and Gaza." She further emphasized that the law is even more problematic for Palestinian residents of occupied East Jerusalem because it prevents them from using a main civil protest tool of boycott to end the Occupation.



The petitioners emphasized that the law violates the basic principle of equality because in other fields, such as consumer-related protests, bodies call for boycott without being subjected to tort lawsuits for damages. In addition, the Supreme Court allowed the state to allocate resources according to the political views of institutions, and to marginalize entities that are critical of state policies from these resources. This is a severe step because public resources should be divided in an equal way to different groups in the society, even if and especially when, there are big divisions.



Adalah Attorneys Hassan Jabareen and Sawsan Zaher and ACRI Attorney Dan Yakir argued in the petition and before the Supreme Court that the law imposed a ‘price tag’ for legitimate political expression and undermined public debate on the most controversial issues in Israeli society. The law has had a ‘chilling effect’ by deterring calls for a boycott as a political stance.



The petition was filed on behalf of eight civil society organizations, including five leading human rights organizations in Israel – Adalah; the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI); the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI); HaMoked - Center for the Defence of the Individual; and Yesh Din. The petitioners also include three organizations that promote an economic boycott as a means to end the Occupation: the Coalition of Women for Peace, the High Follow-up Committee for Arab Citizens in Israel, and the Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Center.



Case citation: HCJ 2072/12, The Coalition of Women for Peace, et al v. The Minister of Finance, et al.(decision delivered 15 April 2015)

http://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/8525

Heckuva day on the Israeli supreme court, kinda like deciding Plessy vs Ferguson and Lochner on the same day.

It's up to you if you would like it removed.

occupation and land grabs over democracy and civil rights come down on the same day.

Israel's judiciary used to be the one hold out, but no longer.