From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Eggert vs. Livni
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:33:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.223515.9796@ennews.eas.asu.edu>,
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

|>In article <1992Aug31.184758.21468@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
|>writes:
|>
|># In article <1992Aug28.212720.9962@bony1.bony.com>, jake@bony1.bony.com
|>(Jake
|># Livni) writes:
|> 
|># |>In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug26135433@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu>
|>eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu
|># |>writes:
|> 
|># |>>The Israelis then deduce that the Palestinians
|># |>>don't own the land, and that it belongs to Israel.
|>
|># |>In many of the most publicized cases of Arabs being evicted from houses
|># |>that they lay claim to "for generations", Israeli courts have found
|># |>documentation of prior Jewish ownership for these properties.  These 
|># |>properties had been taken by Jordan without compensation or agreement. 
|> 
|># Substantiate this claim with some examples Jake, people might beleive it
|>then.
|># Just because you want something to be true does not make it true.
|>
|>	Jake's claim is not reasonably debatable.  The ony thing in dispute 
|>is the numbers.

Jakes claim is made on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Of course their are
Arabs who are crooks, just as there are Jews who are crooks. Jake however made
the claim that "In many cases", thus his claim is about numbers, since his
research in this area is as his research in every area zerothe claim is not
really worthy of consideration.

|># Only in cases where they have been convicted of drug dealing. This is a
|># different matter, if someone is found guilty of a criminal offence then it
|>is
|># justifiable to assume that much of his wealth comes from crime, if he were
|>rich
|># before why would he have stooped to crime in the first place.
|>
|>	You obviously do not know what you are talking about.  If law
|>enforcement officials have "probable cause" (a term which has no fixed
|>definition) that property is used in drug actions, they can confiscate
|>the property without any due process (it can be done unilaterally
|>without a hearing).  For the individual to get the property back, the
|>individual must initiate legal action, pay all court costs and
|>attorney fees, post a bond in the amount of 10% of the value of the
|>property, and then prove to a judge or jury beyond a reasonable shadow
|>of a doubt that the property was not used in any drug activities.  THE
|>INDIVIDUAL MUST PROVE HIS INNOCENCE, THE STATE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE
|>GUILT!!!!!!! 

Thats because you are living in a backwards hick country where the rights of
property are not respected. What you are describing there is abuse of the law.
In the UK we set rather a higher score on democratic rights.

|> In at least one case, an individual convinced a jury he
|>was innocent, and then a judge overturned the jury verdict!  And this
|>all can take place even if charges are never brought against the
|>individual!!!!

This sounds clearly unconstitutional, not that constitutional rights ever meant
much.


|># What Jake seeks to justify is confiscation of property without
|>compensation.
|>
|>	Nope.  He seeks a return of property.  The Arabs should feel lucky
|>they are not being asked o pay for their illegal occupation of the
|>property.

Jake is asking for no such thing. We are discussing the cases where no claim is
being made by any individual. 

|>	I agree that those currently in the house, who boght the property
|>in good faith and their decendents (but those who did not should be
|>booted out) must be treated fairly and humanely.  Their claims,
|>however, re against their Arab bretheren and governments, although I
|>believe Israel should be magnanimous and help{_.

The Arab governments have absolutely nothing to do with the theft of property by
the Israeli state. Given that the policy we are discussing is that of Ariel
Sharon you will look hard to find support for it even in Israel. Given that the
man was practicaly single handedly responsible for the Lebanon catastrophe he is
not exactly popular in Israel. 


|># |>Why should Arab thieves be treated differently from American thieves?
|>
|># Only a racist bigot like Jake would assume that if an Arab is living in a
|>house
|># he must have stolen it.
|>
|>	Only an idiot would deduce that from what Jake wrote.

Jake and Makowsky both assume that all Arabs must be considered guilty of having
stolen Jewish property until proven innocent. This is a racist attitude.


|># |>There is no such hypocritical demand.  The mezuzas on the doorposts
|># |>simply indicate that the Arab claim to have been living in the house
|># |>for generations is false. 
|> 
|># Jews have lived in the holy land for generations too you know.
|>
|>	Agreed.

So the presence of Mezuza holes tells us nothing about whether a house was
illegaly misappropriated from Jews, merely that Jews once lived there. 

If you want peace with you neighbours it is best to stop producing
rationalisation for stealing his property. Thankfully with the defeat of Likud
it is to be expected that these practices have either been stopped or are being
stopped.

I am still waiting for Jake to list the dates of his military service in Israel.
Perhaps Makowsky could also oblige. One of the most disgusting aspects of the
whole situation is the fact that those who are most vociferous in their demands
to continue the occupation of the territories and confiscation of Arab property
are also the very same people who wheedle out of military service on "religious"
grounds. 

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ