The Guardian, Independent, and Telegraph in the UK have
all frentically fabricated a story, which has been framed as an attempt by Israeli
authorities to kick hundreds of Palestinians off ‘their land’ in this
“Palestinian village”.
The claim that the area is “Palestinian” and owned by
local “villagers” is – according to courts who examined claims by the
petitioners (the Nawajah family) – fictitious.
Based on historical
and geographical accounts, aerial photography, mandatory-era maps, travelogues,
and the population registry, Israeli courts (HC 7530/01, 430/12, 1556/12,
1420/14) established that no such Palestinian village ever existed. According
to the NGO Regavim and
the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(MFA), only a handful of families resided there since the
1980s, and it only ever served as temporary (seasonal)
grazing land by Palestinian shepherds.
Further, claims by
the Nawajah family that they owned the land was also disproven, and the
court found that the family owned a permanent residence in Yatta, in
Palestinian-controlled Area A.
Additionally, the 20 illegal structures in the encampment built
adjacent to an ancient Jewish archeological site represents part of a broader
attempt by the EU, the PA, and
pro-Palestinian NGOs to establish ‘facts on the
ground’ in Area C.
Jack Wallis Simons wrote this in his fascinating Daily Mail expose earlier
in the year:
More than 400 EU-funded
Palestinian homes have been erected in Area C of the West Bank, which was
placed under Israeli jurisdiction during the Oslo Accords – a part of
international law to which the EU is a signatory.
The Palestinian buildings,
which have no permits, come at a cost of tens of millions of Euros in public
money, a proportion of which comes from the British taxpayer.
This has raised concerns
that the EU is using valuable resources to take sides in a foreign territorial
dispute.
Finally, the charge that, if
the Palestinian petitioners lose the case, they will be rendered homeless is
also not true, according to the MFA:
[They] have been offered
plots of similar, or even better, quality in a nearby area that already
conforms to planning and zoning laws. Building houses there will also improve
the petitioners’ quality of life, giving them access to infrastructure and
educational facilities that are not available in their current illegal
locations. Additionally, they will be allowed to continue the same agricultural
activities on the lands they currently claim.
Susya is neither “Palestinian” nor
a “village.” It can more accurately be described – to use the parlance of
foreign journalists when reporting on Jews in similar situations in the West
Bank – as an illegal Palestinian settlement.
See original article at http://tinyurl.com/ov4zgu6
No comments:
Post a Comment