Israeli Official Orders Halt to Land Seizures (Israeli Attorney General learns from press 2yrs late)

NPR's All Things Considered ^ | February 1, 2005 | Linda Gradstein

[baseball_fan]

"Israel's attorney general tells the government it cannot seize land in East Jerusalem owned by Palestinians who reside in the West Bank. Attorney General Menachem Mazuz said the confiscations would violate international law and have grave diplomatic repercussions for Israel."

[baseball_fan]

"Most people in Israel had not even heard about the decision [by the state to confiscate the land]..."

The Israeli Attorney General finds out two years later from the press. Legal process in the end works. Misunderstandings averted. Relationships improved.

[baseball_fan]

Thank you for a very insightful reply. Using the right-of-center's own standards in this particular case (the larger case being beyond what is possible in a limited discussion):

Could the state not have taken the land in this particular instance openly under the right of "eminent domain" (the government's right to take private property for public use) since some parts of it was used for the new wall?

If not, taking the standard that it fall under an "affirmative action" policy towards Jews to change the percentage of private property in Jewish hands so as to maintain a Jewish majority, would not payment to the Arab owners still be in order?

Also, if the Arab owners might have been paid in a transparent transaction if necessary under an affirmative action policy, would this have reduced mistrust and a sense of absence of due process possibly leading to hostility that the larger Jewish population, being kept in the dark, could then only assign to racial motives?

If the state did determine it had a right to take the land under a policy of affirmative action with compensation to the Arab owners, did not the other Israeli Jews have a right to know the land was then available for purchase so they could bid?

Several quotes stand out from the helpful article you cited:

"Eldad said Mazuz has violated Israel's declaration of independence by preferring Israel's democratic characteristic to its definition as a Jewish state."

and

"More than anything it testifies to the widening crack in the wall of Zionist, Jewish and Israeli belief."

and

"The decision constitutes the fulfillment of the true approach of a Zionism that believes in a state with a Jewish majority that provides equal rights for its citizens," he said.

There is obviously a profound discussion taking place as to first principles that we on the outside can only pray may lead to freedom, security and prosperity for all involved. Having grown up in the segregated South, it was an important moment when I realized that courage, integrity, justice, love, goodness, mercy and other virtues transcended just my race, my religious affiliation and gender and were often found in an equal and sometimes greater degree in specific individuals falling into these other categories. Indeed, as a Chrisitan I feel to whatever degree I have these, it is a matter of Grace rather than personal merit.

A great freedom was realized in the South once people were able to relate to one another on this basis. America, I suppose, has been a great experiment in this approach. At one time it would have been considered historically naive. Even self-government was at one time considered historically naive.

Any people who have experienced the Holocaust and several millennia of discrimination have to feel a strong preference for security. We too are struggling with how to maintain certain values informed by religious belief while reconciling that with equal rights. Do equal rights and tolerance ultimately lead to a cultural nihilism where no distinction in values can be made, or is that a caricature that only applies to radical equality?

We are left finally to fall back on a principle no less difficult to replace than the golden rule to govern our relations with one another. It is scary in part because such strong loyalties are involved. What or to whom does our ultimate loyal belong? If God, does that point to these transcendent virtues capable of being shared by all? And to constitutional democracy as the best manifestation?

Regards,
Bob