Is Freedom of Speech a thing of past?

Is Freedom of Speech a thing of past?

Photo from:https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aron_Flam

Recent events in a rich European Country, Sweden have risen to a question of how strongly a liberal society is moving towards rise of communism or totalitarians. There have been a few events, two of them makes the author wonder if there is a tendency towards extreme socialism;

1. Aron Flam is a Swedish stand-up comedian, screenwriter, author, television host, podcaster, and actor. He is of Jewish origin and has spoken frequently on this in his stand-up comedy routines. He has recently published a book “This is a Swedish Tiger “. The book takes as it’s starting point the Swedish wartime propaganda slogan “A Swedish tiger,” which is a play on words – “tiger” in Swedish can mean the animal, but is also the present tense of the verb “to keep silent,” meaning that the slogan can also be read “a Swede keeps silent.”. The author explains that the “book reveals how Sweden’s social democrats managed to not only escape blame for its cooperation with Hitler’s Germany during the war. But also, how they got away with the gold, re-established contacts with other former allies of the Nazi’s, and silently rebuilt the world to suit their ends.”. The entire stock of the latest edition of the book was seized by prosecutor in Stockholm in the police raid, from the offices of the publisher Samizdat. In total some 2,200 books were seized, amounting to nearly 1.5 tonnes of printed material. The prosecutor claims the book is in infringement of copy right. This has been disputed by the author. Extractions from The Jerusalem Post. What does this really show? Sweden, a promoter of freedom of expression and human rights, who annually issues several declarations against violation of freedom of expression and human rights for other countries, and is one of its own critics of censorship and anti-freedom of expression. How is it possible to be both for and against of freedom of expression? According to many fans of this book and its author, this is a move against human rights and freedom of expression. A country that violates freedom of expression, does not have the authority to designate and issue a freedom of expression statement for other countries.
2. On the other hand, Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Linde, a feminist and Social Democrat strongly criticized Israel and continually preaching against Israel. She emphasised that The European Union’s response to Israel’s accession plans has been strong. But she does not want to address what the EU’s actions may be related to. The criticism has been met with mixed political reactions from Israel’s ambassador to Sweden and a number of high-ranking Swedish politicians. The question is why Ms. Anna Linde, when the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran, along with its proxy forces, provided financial and missile assistance to the terrorist groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, her political and feminist sentiments were not hurt and did not raise the issue in the EU?

News From Israel – July 9, 2020

ILTV Israel News

Is Israel stealing private Palestinian land? – opinion

MOSHE DANN

When Jewish communities (“settlements”) were established, it was done “in good faith,” and with government approval on vacant land. Arabs did not go to court to claim “their land.”

BULLDOZERS DEMOLISH nine homes in Ofra in 2017. / (photo credit: HADAS PARUSH/FLASH90)

One of the most serious accusations against Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria to “end the occupation” and in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaigns is that Israel systematically steals or “seizes” “private Palestinian land.” Not only would that be illegal, it is immoral. This seems to be the basis for the High Court’s decision to strike down the Regulation Law.

It is important to remember the reason for the Regulation Law. When Jewish communities (“settlements”) were established, it was done “in good faith,” and with government approval on vacant land. Arabs did not go to court to claim “their land.” Only much later, led by left-wing NGOs, were Arabs encouraged to make their claims.

The humanitarian purpose of the Regulation Law was to protect Jews who had built their homes “in good faith.” Most other countries have similar laws which protect homeowners in cases where the value of what was built far exceeds the value of the land. Destroying the homes of many thousands of Jews to resolve questionable or false Arab land claims would be unfair and unjust. Therefore, compensation was offered to Arab claimants, regardless of proof of ownership.

The source for the charge that “Israel is stealing privately owned land” is not only PLO/PA, Hamas, left-wing and anti-Israel media, and Arab propaganda, but an agency of the Israeli government: Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT).

COGAT, a unit of the Defense Ministry, is responsible for “implementing government policy in Judea and Samaria.” But COGAT not only “implements,” it also makes policy. And, as a separate independent military-legal administration, it is virtually unaccountable to anyone except the defense minister and the prime minister. They are responsible for this misrepresentation of fact.

COGAT and the IDF legal adviser, in cooperation with the attorney-general’s office, the state prosecutor’s office, the Justice Ministry and the High Court (Bagatz), routinely decide that land claimed by Arabs is valid. These claims, however, are based on massive distributions of state land throughout Judea and Samaria during the Jordanian occupation. They lack supporting evidence of ownership, such as deeds, transactions and actual possession, or usufruct. Nevertheless, COGAT recognizes the claims as valid, thus supporting charges that Israel steals private land.

Based on COGAT’s decisions, which are not reviewed by district courts – the only judicial body mandated to determine matters of land ownership – NGOs supporting Arab claims appeal to the High Court, which relies heavily on COGAT as the government’s authority.

COGAT defends its decisions by citing the land registry (taba) for Judea and Samaria, which lists names of “owners,” mostly villages and tribes who were given state land during the early 1960s. None of the land was purchased, most of the land was never used, no taxes were paid and the original Arab recipients of land are no longer alive. To whom does this disputed land belong?

ACCORDING TO Ottoman and British Mandate law, gifted land could not be inherited without approval by the sovereign. Moreover, land that was given by the sovereign could be claimed as private only if the land was used continually (usufruct) for 10 years and taxes were paid. Otherwise, unused land reverts to the sovereign by law. Jordan changed this law and registered the land as privately owned, permanently, without conditions.
Since Jordan was never acknowledged as the legitimate sovereign over this territory, its occupation and anti-Jewish laws – including prohibiting non-Jordanian citizens from owning land and incurring the death penalty for selling land to Jews – have no validity; COGAT differs.

The status of land in Judea and Samaria was further confused by former High Court Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch, who, at the end of her term decided unilaterally that hazakah, the right to claim title to land by working it and paying taxes applied only to Arabs, not Jews.

Since COGAT considers the land registry for Judea and Samaria “confidential,” it restricts access to it by Jews, making it nearly impossible to challenge Arab claims of private ownership or for Jews to acquire land. COGAT’s secretive procedure is backed by the High Court, which defends COGAT’s rule as a government agency. COGAT refuses to explain why their rules prevail exclusively and why access to public documents is forbidden.

Regavim, an NGO, challenged the legality of COGAT’s position specifically with regard to land surrounding the Jewish community of Psagot. Regavim claimed that COGAT’s policies discriminate against Jews. The Jerusalem District Court agreed, awarded the case to Regavim, and ordered COGAT to make available land records of the surrounding area; COGAT has appealed to the High Court.

According to Ari Briggs, spokesman for Regavim, COGAT‘s policy restricts access to the land registry for Judea and Samaria only to people who are “connected to the land,” and defines those people only as Arabs. Regavim’s legal challenge is to force COGAT to end its discriminatory policy and allow equal access to Jews. Not only did COGAT appeal to the District Court’s decision, they also forbade access to the land registry by military order – thus transforming what should be a normal administrative process into their own exclusive domain.

Since 2008, COGAT has prevented the operation of a sewage treatment plant between the Arab village of Silwad and the Jewish community of Ofra because, COGAT ruled, it is built on “private Palestinian land” which belongs to the village. The attorney-general and the High Court have ordered that the project – which would serve all residents of the disputed area – be removed.

COGAT also opposes plans to widen the road near the Adam Junction because it infringes on “private Palestinian land.” Asked for details about who owns the land in question, COGAT has refused – and COGAT is “the law.”

The government sought to rectify this discriminatory and undemocratic system by appointing independent courts to adjudicate land disputes and determine ownership, and/or by extending the jurisdiction of District Courts as recommended by a commission of legal experts headed by the late justice Edmund Levy. That was the purpose of the Regulation Law.

The High Court could also require that disputes over land ownership be heard first by District Courts before any appeals, as is commonly practiced in all democratic countries. The High Court’s recent decision striking down the Regulation Law ignores this important first step in judicial procedures and norms. Therefore, the fundamental questions remain: To whom does disputed land belong? Is the Regulation Law legal, fair and just? This is one of the reasons why plans to extend Israeli law and sovereignty to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria is so important.

The writer is a PhD historian and journalist in Israel.

Israel – Vacation Beyond Belief

Visit Israel

The capital of Palestine – just 50 meters from a Jewish neighborhood

SHIMON COHEN

A PANORAMIC view of east Jerusalem. /  (photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Jerusalem Deputy Mayor Arieh King reads the “Jerusalem” clauses in the Trump plan, and discovers a tragedy that is being played down.

Included in the “Deal of the Century” plan of the president of the United States, is a plan for the future of Jerusalem. Public attention is less focused on this issue, but when Arieh King, deputy mayor of Jerusalem studies US President Donald Trump’s outline of his plan for the capital of Israel, he is shocked.

According to the plan, the neighborhoods of Shuafat, Kafr Akab, Anata and environs will be designated as the capital of the Palestinian state, which is being planned. King views the concept of delivering these areas as the first stage of a moral – and conceptual – collapse. He totally rejects the argument, often put forward, “We are not there anyway,” adding “We are also not in Umm el-Fahm – but when we want to be there, we are there! Whoever talks about moving any borders of Jerusalem is on a slippery downward slope which will subsequently lead to discussions involving the surrender of more and more territory.”

In his remarks, King emphasizes that this involves handing over sovereign areas of the State of Israel and the political significance is to permit, and consent, to the opening of negotiations relating to anywhere in the country, including the Galilee or the Negev.

“Remember that Likud, and Netanyahu, were initially elected under the slogan ‘Peres will divide Jerusalem.’ It is now becoming clear that the Likud delivered Sinai, Likud supported and participated in the expulsion from Gush Katif and parts of Samaria – today, Likud is already dividing Jerusalem.”

He details the security implications of the decision to deliver these eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods to Arab sovereignty: “Whereas in Gaza, the distance between houses in Gaza and Jewish homes is a mile or a half to Nahal Oz, Erez and Kissufim, the reality involving the distance between Neveh Ya’acov, a neighborhood of 25,000 residents and the first home in what would be a Palestinian state is fifty meters. The distance between Eliyahu Meridor Street in Pisgat Ze’ev, with its 150,000 residents, and the neighboring Arab houses in what would be called a ‘Palestinian State,’ is just 120 meters. “Today, when there is a shooting in the air, or ‘fireworks,’ the police handle the situation. However, in the event of an independent Palestinian state, the police or the army cannot enter, because such an entry is actually a ‘declaration’ of war.”

KING REFERRED to his conversations with politicians from various parties when he revealed this simple data to them. “I talked to 12 supporters of this program, politicians from different parties, and not one single person was aware of these facts. They just refused to believe me. I was told I was a ‘demagogue’ at which point I told them to open their maps and see the facts for themselves. After checking out the facts they realized I was right, but what do they do? Nothing. They remain silent or, at best, say ‘We will not reach that stage.’ I remember those same words at the time of Oslo when they said, ‘We we will not reach Jericho and Abu Dis’ – but in the end we did!”

Is it possible that those who draw out the maps do not know the realities of the landscape? King presents examples in which he himself was involved in proving that this is indeed the case and that sometimes the agenda blurs reality:

“Two months ago, a message was issued by the Prime Minister’s Office to the Jerusalem Municipality that, due to the novel coronavirus and a concern that the illness could erupt in those areas that were not under Israeli scrutiny, Arabs were not to enter the neighborhoods beyond the fence into Jerusalem. The mayor of Jerusalem updated us on the subject and I asked him, ‘What are they talking about? What outbreak? There is no outbreak.’ But the mayor claimed that these were the instructions of the National Security Council. Two months passed and it turned out to be nonsense. In the presence of a few other people I asked the mayor, “This is our National Security Council? How can they prevent a citizen of Israel, with a blue identity card, who lives in Kafr Akab from entering? They obviously do not know their maps, for if the National Security Council did know their maps they would know that, the same Arab who lived in Kafr Akab, can drive, in his car, to Adam, to Beit El or to Ma’aleh Adumim through Hizma, throgh Azun or through any other crossing. With all due respect, they just don’t know what they’re talking about!”

KING REMEMBERS: “In 2000, while Barak was talking about dividing Jerusalem at Camp David. I was called to a meeting together with Matti Dan, the head of the General Security Services and others at the Intercontinental Hotel in Tel Aviv. We went up to the suite while Barak was at Camp David talking about Jerusalem. Also present was the IDF regional commander. I asked him if he knew what it was about. He scolded me for questioning him saying that he was the regional commander – and he knew everything. I asked him how they travel from the Knesset to Abu Dis, which they were discussing at the time. He knew nothing! The problem with the ‘right wing’ is that they regard anything from the military as sacred and indisputable. But these military men are politicians who have been ‘brainwashed’ throughout their military journey, without which, they would not have advanced. With a few exceptions, they have an agenda, and without the agenda involving ‘handing over land,’ they would have gone nowhere. We rely upon them to know what they’re talking about – but they don’t know. When they speak about a Palestinian State fifty meters from Neveh Ya’acov they know the significance as they know what is happening in the Gaza Strip and the Gaza envelope. But they do not say anything to the politicians as it does not fit the ‘Land for Peace’ agenda.” King says, adding: “In the Shuafat Refugee Camp and in Anata there are weapons that are plainly on view. They shoot at each other and they shoot in the air. That’s the way it is today, in Jerusalem under Israeli control. And when the Palestinians rule under the power of a state… ?

I know what will happen. Pisgat Ze’ev will empty out, as will French Hill and Neveh Ya’acov. The neighborhoods will be deserted as people will not stay there.”

He recalls the days of shooting into Gilo from Beit Jala, just 500-800 meters away – when it was not a state. “When it is a state you cannot call in the Duvdevan army unit or the police.”

Arieh King – who has for many years been fighting for the settlement of Jews in all parts of the city – has criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a number of occasions and says directly and emphatically: “That’s Bibi. For the last twenty five years Netanyahu has been a danger to Jerusalem and its residents. I have been saying this about Bibi since 1997. From his very beginning he was against Jewish presence in East Jerusalem and all he did was either through lack of choice, or by lying. On Jerusalem Day I was in Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, and Bibi announced that we have started building in Givat Hamatos. It’s a lie. A week and a half before the election, he announced that he had issued tenders for Givat Hamatos.” Which tenders? There are no tenders. But the public believes him and he is the head of the right-wing camp.

There are a slew of politicians on the right who are far better than he is. As we face difficult decisions, it is imperative that every one of us remains informed and aware of the repercussions that can result from the “Deal of a Century” – as it stands at present.

The writer is the editor of the sovereignty journal, Ribonut. He also writes for Israel National News/Arutz 7