U.S. synagogue holds event promoting sale of West Bank homes

[Doondoo]

TEANECK, New Jersey (AP) - As protesters chanted and waved signs outside, roughly 250 American Jews were able to get information on buying homes in the West Bank during a Sunday event promoted as a way to help Jewish settlers.

The sales pitch, organized by the Amana Settlement Movement, took place in Teaneck, New Jersey at an Orthodox synagogue, Congregation B'nai Yeshurun.

The event drew rebukes from an Israeli group, as well as pro-Palestinian organizations, who say such efforts undermine international peace efforts.

The opposition groups believe the gathering represented the first time West Bank homes have been offered for sale in the United States.

.......

Rabbi Steven Pruzansky said people were interested in the houses as an investment and as a possible home for themselves, as well as to make a public statement that "there are Jews in the world who believe, want to send a message that, the land belongs to us, to the Jewish people, and we make that statement without any shame, any hesitation."

Aliza Herbst, a representative from Amana, said the company was turning to North American Jews to buy homes so it can rent them out to young Israeli families who want to move into the West Bank, but can't afford to build.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/830508.html

[mix]

1. no shame

eom

[Ian David]

5. I agree. There is no excuse for them to do that. n/t

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solo_in_MD]

7. Have to wonder why Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims are allowed to by homes and land in Israel

but jews and others are not allowed to buy homes and land in Palestinian areas.

[Shaktimaan]

9. Encouraging real estate deals in America for the west bank is f'd up.

But considering the high percentage of settlers that are also American, I am not surprised, (looking for a reason to exist all of a sudden, I guess.)

To be fair about this, the issue is not about where people should have the right to live. It is about the right of self-determination and who should have the rights to the land itself. The big deal with Jews buying West Bank land is not that people are supporting an anti-Jew dual-policy, but that the west bank is occupied territory where the locals have little control over policy of any kind.

[Tom Joad]

12. Yes, its like apartheid isn't it. What input do Palestinians have in this?

The "Palestinian Authority" has no sovereignity over this land. These decisions are made in Jerusalem.

[Shaktimaan]

16. No. It's wrong and troubling on many levels, sure. But it isn't very much like apartheid at all.

And I think that on some level you may appreciate that the situation is sufficiently unique in the world that simply labeling it "apartheid" does a disservice to everyone involved by overly simplifying the history of the conflict and then lumping all the ethnic groups engaged in it into basic stereotypes. I've seen a lot of debate over whether the term is applicable or appropriate to use and while I applaud any increased public interest in the conflict most of these debates ended up centering on semantics and rhetoric, ignoring any of the truly relevant concerns. It ended up being a series of debates about a word instead of anything remotely helpful or engaging.

Have you considered that the time we spend arguing about whether or not this one word really applies to the OT could probably be better utilized talking about the actual issues?

[Tom Joad]

10. Solo.. First, they are indigenous people to that land. You may have missed that.

Second, there are many restrictions imposed by Israel for Palestinians to own land in Israel. For example, a Palestinian in Nablus cannot buy land in Tel Aviv...so either be honest or get educated.

Furthermore how can folks in New Jersey make decisions about land in the West Bank... It;s not theirs.. many have never set foot there..many have no relatives there... How is that fair???

Would it be fair if a group of say, white protestants bought land, for their exclusive use... in Canada? In Mexico? In Bolivia? Can someone just auction off land in France... or would you expect you might have to deal with the French government.

If you wanted to own land in Mexico, you have to go to Mexico, be subject to Mexican laws.

[Solo_in_MD]

19. Are you aware of the punishment imposed on selling land to Jews under the PA?

Its death

[Tom Joad]

26. You have a link for that?

[Violet_Crumble]

34. I asked for links after some slightly different versions were claimed in a recent thread...

Let's see. In that thread it was:

'Have to wonder when the UN is going to investigate the complete denial of rights to Jews
in Palestinian held territory, including not being allowed to own property and being murdered for being suspected of being a Jew.

Note I did not say Israeli, I said Jew.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x167344#167345

and:

'I was refering to Gaza where if you sell land to a Jew you are to be killed as well as the new owner and the land confiscated.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x167344#167353

I asked the poster for links to those claims, and he/she wasn't forthcoming with anything to back up those claims...

Have to wonder why that is ;)

[Shaktimaan]

37. Regardless, his posts are accurate.

Those accused of selling land in the West Bank are prosecuted under Jordanian law. Prior to 1967 Jordanian law provided a punishment of up to five years in prison for selling land to “foreigners.”

This appears to have been superseded in 1973 by the Law for Preventing the Sale of Immovable Property to the Enemy, which characterized the sale of land to Israelis in Jordan or the West Bank as a crime against state security punishable by death. Jordan repealed this law as part of the peace process with Israel. Although there is continuing legal controversy about whether either of these laws applies in the West Bank today, the PA attorney general said in May 1997 that he would seek the death penalty for any Palestinian convicted of selling land to Jews.

Human Rights Watch has learned of three persons, a judge, a notary, and a lawyer, who have been arrested in 2001 allegedly for involvement in land sales to Israelis, though it is not known if anyone has been charged or tried.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:0V_mSNxyYWIJ:www.hrw.org/reports/2001/pa/isrpa1101.pdf+arafat+land+sales+to+jews+punishable+by+death&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=36&gl=us&client=safari


JERUSALEM -- Israel is planning to lodge a formal complaint with the U.N. Committee on Human Rights about the murders of Palestinians who sold land to Jews.
Israeli Cabinet Secretary Danny Naveh said Wednesday that the Palestinian Authority's recent declaration that selling land to Jews is an offense punishable by death was racist and reeks of anti-Semitism.
The U.N. committee decided two years ago to deal with anti-Semitic incidents worldwide.
Two Palestinians suspected of selling land to Jews were murdered this month. Israel has accused the Palestinian Authority of involvement in the slayings.
Both victims, Farid al-Bashiti and Harbi Abu Sarah, were found in the Palestinian-held West Bank town of Ramallah.
While Palestinian officials have denied any responsibility, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat reiterated this week that the death penalty was a legitimate defense against Israeli settlement activity.
In an interview with the Israeli daily Yediot Achronot, Arafat said the death penalty was first imposed by Jordan in 1967, after Israel captured the territory from West Bank.
"How should we call our own who serve the Israeli policy of dispossession? They are isolated traitors and we will act against them according to the law," he told Yediot.

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/6244/edition_id/116/format/html/displaystory.html

[Violet_Crumble]

41. No, they're not. What about that first quote I posted?

'Have to wonder when the UN is going to investigate the complete denial of rights to Jews
in Palestinian held territory, including not being allowed to own property and being murdered for being suspected of being a Jew.

Note I did not say Israeli, I said Jew.'

That stuff about being murdered for being suspected of being a Jew sounds a bit bullshitty, especially seeing folk like Amira Hass and foreign nationals have lived side by side with Palestinians in Gaza...

What I want to see is the actual law itself where it refers to Jews and not Israelis. As the other poster claimed that both Palestinians and the people they sell land to are killed, I'd like to hear about some instances where the seller and buyer have been tried, convicted and killed...

[Shaktimaan]

42. I have no idea about the first quote.

If there's any truth to it I doubt it's any kind of law. I mean, it's probably happened but I've never heard of it being policy. All the Jews were thrown out anyway when Jordan took the WB in 48. Anyone who moved back is in a settlement. At any rate it surely can't apply to ALL Jews who might go there. I've been there and I'm clearly Jewish. My ex girlfriend did direct action there, living in Ramallah for a few weeks with Palestinians. No one murdered her. The closest anyone came to hurting her was from Israeli soldiers.

There are plenty of instances of official discrimination and corruption though, just for interest's sake.

The PA failed to halt several cases of seizures of Christian-owned land in the Bethlehem area by criminal gangs. There were credible reports that PA security forces and judicial officials colluded with members of these gangs to extort property illegally from Christian landowners. Several cases of physical attacks against Christians in Bethlehem also went unaddressed by the PA, while attacks against Muslims in the same area were investigated.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35499.htm

I was just talking about the second one. I can't help you with the exact law there, Violet. I don't have it on me. But it doesn't really matter. The Justice Minister, Arafat, all kinds of official PA folks made public statements where they referred both to Jews and Israelis. There are people dead, and from news reports it seems pretty clear why, but if you're looking for a trial, conviction and lethal injection after a long appeals process then you're barking up the wrong quasi state run by terrorist entities. There's no trial Violet. That's not how it works. Yet, it has been made abundently clear that this claim is, in fact, policy.

New York Times good for you?

The Israeli police said today that they were holding a Palestinian man and woman on suspicion of involvement in the killing of an Arab real estate dealer accused of selling land to Jews.
An Israeli court here ordered them detained for questioning in the killing of the dealer, Farid Bashiti, 70, an East Jerusalem resident, whose bludgeoned and bound body was found last Friday in the Palestinian-ruled West Bank town of Ramallah.
The killing followed an announcement by the Palestinian Authority on May 5 that it would impose the death sentence on Palestinians convicted of selling land to Jews.

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F4061FFF3E5C0C758DDDAC0894DF494D81

Fatah's Aksa Martyrs Brigades distributed leaflets in Jerusalem on Wednesday threatening to execute Palestinians who sell their property to Jews or act as intermediaries in such deals.
"The Aksa Martyrs Brigades warn those thieves and traitors who are selling lands through Israeli real estate agents," said the leaflets, some of which were distributed on the Temple Mount.

<snip>

The Palestinian Authority decided in 1997 to forbid the sale of Arab-owned land directly or via intermediaries to Jews. The PA cabinet empowered its courts and security forces to implement the decision and to punish anyone who sells land directly or has assisted in its sale.
"The sale of land constitutes the gravest danger concerning the Judaization of the Palestinian lands," the cabinet said in a statement.
Former PA Minister of Justice Freih Abu Medin also issued a warning to all Palestinians involved in selling property to Jews. "This is a very dangerous act and there has been a decision to ban it by putting anyone who sells even a centimeter on swift trial and to seek the death penalty," he explained.

"These people are traitors and Israel exploits them in expanding its settlements. For us, whoever sells land to Jews and settlers is more dangerous than collaborators. Therefore, they must be put on trial and sentenced to death," he said.

Shortly after the warning, Fatah activists and Palestinian Authority security agents kidnapped and killed six Arabs from Jerusalem after accusing them of selling lands and houses to in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem to Jewish groups.

The bullet-riddled bodies of some of the victims were found near Ramallah.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1007026/posts

PA Mufti Ikrama Sabri: "Whoever is found to have sold land to Jews, his punishment is death. It is forbidden to pray for him, it is forbidden to purify his body before burial, and it is forbidden to bury him in a Muslim cemetery. We are obligated to remind the public of this religious law, so as not to allow Jews to purchase Arab land and property with dollars they receive from America in order to throw us out of this land." in an interview with an Israeli newspaper (Yediot Ahronot, May 20, 1997)

PA Justice Minister Freih Abu Middein: "I warned the land dealers several times through the media not to play with fire. For us, whoever sells land to Jews and settlers is more dangerous than collaborators. Therefore, they must be put on trial and sentenced to death... they are traitors." in an interview with an Israeli newspaper (Yediot Ahronot, May 20, 1997)

PA Chairman Yasser Arafat: "Our law is a Jordanian law that we inherited, which applies to both the West Bank and Gaza, and sets the death penalty for those who sell land to Israelis... We are talking about a few traitors, and we shall implement against them what is written in the law books. It is our right and our obligation to defend our land." in an interview with an Israeli newspaper (Yediot Ahronot, May 21, 1997)

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Peace+Process/1997/RECENT+STATEMENTS+BY+SENIOR+PA+OFFICIALS+CONCERNIN.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

44. So his posts weren't accurate at all...

The poster had made some specific claims, so going off on tangents and not supporting the original specific claims isn't really achieving anything.

[Shaktimaan]

52. I supported the claim he made in this thread.

How is that a tangent?

[Violet_Crumble]

60. You didn't support it at all...

This is what he claimed: 'I was refering to Gaza where if you sell land to a Jew you are to be killed as well as the new owner and the land confiscated.'

You've shown nothing that supports his claim that the new owners are killed, nor have you provided anything that shows anyone selling land is killed as part of any official Palestinian policy, which is what he was making out happened...

[Tom Joad]

11. Can I buy a house in Tel Aviv?

[Shaktimaan]

13. I don't know. Do you have the money for a down payment?

Tel Aviv is expensive. I'm assuming you aren't an Israeli citizen so if you wanted to live at your new house permanently you would either have to apply for a visa or for citizenship. It's pretty much the exact same process that you'd encounter trying to buy a house in and move to a foreign country that you are not a citizen of.

But let me get this straight... are you critiquing Israel for restricting non-Israeli citizens from free access to move there and buy property, AT WILL? Are you seriously complaining that, as a non-citizen, you don't have all the same rights as a citizen?

OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here and take a wild shot at what could be the only possible explanation which might make your question somewhat plausible. Are you directly descended from, or are you yourself, a Palestinian refugee who fled in the Nakba of 1948?

[breakaleg]

14. Tom is not a citizen of Israel just as those Americans purchasing homes in question aren't citizens

of the West Bank.

[Tom Joad]

15. No, I am not Palestinian.

I'm not Jewish either.

"are you critiquing Israel for restricting non-Israeli citizens from free access to move there and buy property, AT WILL? Are you seriously complaining that, as a non-citizen, you don't have all the same rights as a citizen?"

No.

What i'm asking is, why can't Palestinians say no to folks in New Jersey. People in New Jersey are not citizens.

And then i do have to ask... Why can't Palestinian who were forced to leave in '48 not return... but people who have no ties to the land can.

[Shaktimaan]

17. Well, you know the answers to those questions, Tom.

You just don't like them or think they're ethical because they run counter to your own ideas and hopes for the future.

Which brings me to something I've been thinking about over the past few days. Tom, you and I disagree on most aspects of this issue, yet you clearly have been following it closely for a long time and have a strong emotional investment in the outcome. With that in mind I have a question for you.

What is your goal in regards to this conflict?

I'll explain. At its simplest, I've heard this struggle classified as being essentially a fight between two tribes with directly competing interests. OK, not bad. But the reality is that it's not just Israeli vs. Palestinian, there are tons of factions on either side with competing interests, most of which end up being mutually exclusive. So you really end up having to choose what exactly you are fighting to achieve, otherwise its pointless.

There are many fighting in favor of Peace. Lots of people choose Justice instead. I've identified a few public figures who have put Honor at the top of their list, some go for Power or even just Influence. And, as always, there's people everywhere who are fighting for themselves alone. I'd love to think that it is possible to achieve more than a single one of these goals, and I am confident that time will make it possible. But right now there is absolutely no way that we are going to be able to attain a Peace which will satisfy someone who craves Justice, especially since Justice is one of those amorphous thingees that looks different to everyone. Actually, only one of these goals looks exactly the same no matter who is looking at it.

Peace demands that we be pragmatists above all else. Unfortunately I think some of the others are sexier and get way more airtime. But don't let me sway you. These camps are mutually exclusive, one has to be your main squeeze. Which one are you down with?

[Solo_in_MD]

18. Yes

[Tom Joad]

27. If I were a Palestinian who was a refugee from '48 i would not be able to...

right? god, Palestinian-Americans (with US Passports!) can't even visit the West Bank. Families in the West Bank have been forcibly separated by Israel, because the Israeli occupation regime refuses to renew their visa.

But even as a non-Jew, non-Palestinian, i don't think its likely i could get Israeli citizenship. Let's start being honest, Solo.

[Shaktimaan]

29. Ha. lol.

Got any evidence for your first statement, Tom? US Passport holders don't need visas to visit Israel. I don't even know what you second sentence refers to. Renew who's visas? To where?

As for your second statement, I think it is your attitude, not your ethnicity that would erode your chances of getting Israeli citizenship. But if you could hide your hostility for the application process you would have the same odds as anyone else applying for citizenship who wasn't eligible under right-of-return. So what? They have a lottery just like every other country. If you qualify for ROR you don't enter the lottery, the lottery just for people like you.

No one said you are guaranteed to be able to live in any country you wish Tom. If you want to be honest about this you should hold Israel to similar standards as other nations, not idealistic, unrational pipe dreams. The point solo was making was that Israel does not discriminate among her citizens by ethnicity as the Arab nations surrounding her do.

By the way, you realize that you don't even need to be Jewish to qualify for right of return, don't you? Almost half of all ROR immigrants to Israel in the past few years were NON-JEWS.

[oberliner]

30. Palestinian-Americans traveling to the West Bank and Gaza

Palestinian Americans: American citizens of Palestinian origin may be considered by Israeli authorities to be residents of the West Bank or Gaza, especially if they were issued a Palestinian ID number or if, as minors, they were registered in either of their parents’ Palestinian IDs. Any American citizen whom Israel considers to be a resident of the West Bank or Gaza is required by Israel to hold a valid Palestinian passport to enter or leave the West Bank or Gaza via Israel or the Allenby Bridge border crossing. American citizens in this category who arrive without a Palestinian passport will generally be granted permission to travel to the West Bank or Gaza to obtain one, but may only be allowed to depart via Israel on a Palestinian passport rather than on their U.S. passport.

Persons carrying a Palestinian Authority identity number will not be permitted to enter Israel through Ben Gurion International Airport if their last departure was through the Allenby Bridge or Rafah border crossings. Such persons who arrive at Ben Gurion will be turned back by Israeli officials and required to re-enter through Allenby or Rafah. Anyone who last departed Israel through Ben Gurion Airport may return via the airport or any border crossing.

During periods of heightened security restrictions, Palestinian Americans with residency status in the West Bank or Gaza may not be allowed to enter or exit Gaza or the West Bank, even if using their American passports. Persons with residency status in the West Bank or Gaza must apply to the Government of Israel for a transit permit in order to depart via Ben Gurion Airport. Applications for such permits must be submitted at least three Israeli working days prior to departure, although Israeli authorities may take considerably longer to render a decision. Except in humanitarian or special interest cases, Israeli authorities are unlikely to grant this permit. In this event, Palestinian Americans must exit the West Bank via the crossing at Allenby Bridge and from Gaza via the Rafah crossing. Specific questions may be addressed to the nearest Israeli Embassy or Consulate or, within Israel, the nearest office of the Ministry of the Interior.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1064.html

[Shaktimaan]

32. I stand corrected. Thank you.

[Tom Joad]

47. In other words, Palestinian Americans are not being treated well.

http://www.righttoenter.ps/

Palestinian Americans pay US taxes, the US does much in support the state of Israel. Israel should treat all US citizens with respect. It is not doing so.

Its come to this, that Palestinians, even those holding US passports, a nation that has done so much for Israel, cannot even visit Palestine.

It is up to the discretion of Israel.

Yet Palestinians have no say about who builds in Palestine.

[Tom Joad]

48. if they are non-Jews, and non-Palestinians

how is it they are "returning"??

[Shaktimaan]

53. give me a break,

with the semantics. I didn't say they were "returning." I said they qualified under the ROR laws. It's a set of laws with a general title which is used as venacular. The right for non-Jews to emigrate in certain circumstances under this law was due to an amendment passed in 1970. They opted not to change the name of the set of laws just because they amended it.

You can look this stuff up you know.

[Tom Joad]

49. Yes, please learn more, shakti. Families are being seperated.

In the West Bank, Israel is tearing apart families...
why should Israel be the decider who goes into the West Bank?
They refuse to reissue visas for those who have been living there for years. Under illegal Israeli occupation for close to 40 years. Now they can't even allow this little bit of freedom?

Of course very few Americans are aware of this.

Example:
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/Jan_Feb_2007/0701013.html

ISRAEL HAS DECREED that my wife and I can no longer live together. I am Palestinian and she is Swiss and we have been married for 28 years. She was given two weeks to leave the occupied Palestinian territory. The Israeli Ministry of Interior wrote on her Swiss passport: “LAST PERMIT.” We have been living together in Ramallah for 12 years. We came in 1994, when, after the Oslo Agreement, we were encouraged to move to the West Bank by the prospect of “peace” and development.

My wife, Anita, speaks Arabic, likes the landscape, cooks Arabic meals, and she cares for my grandfather’s village house, an old stone building, and the plants around it more than I do. She votes in Palestinian elections as the spouse of a Palestinian. She is active in serving the local society in Public Health. She has so many friends here and considers it home. She still has her valuable European element and contacts, but she doesn’t want to be separated from this environment or from me, and I certainly do not want to be separated from her. Our children are grown up and work abroad. But they are also not sure they will be allowed to visit us here. On her way to visit us in Ramallah a few months ago, our daughter, who has a Swiss passport, was delayed for six hours at Tel Aviv airport and grilled when she landed. She was lucky. Others are deported to where they took off from, often spending a night or more at the airport’s notorious detention “facility.”

[Shaktimaan]

54. why?

why should Israel be the decider who goes into the West Bank?

Because they administrate the west bank. By the way, are the only examples of "families being torn apart" ones where a non-citizen, non-palestinian is being deported? You know that happens everywhere occasionally, right? Like, in America for example. And why can't they go live in her home country like they were doing again?

Dude, this is a lousy example of Israeli oppression. Do you have anything about PALESTINIAN families being torn apart? Ones who have no other options. Not ones who might have to move to Switzerland, even though the wife has friends in Ramallah and likes to cook Arabic.

If this is the worst example you have it doesn't say much for your argument. And this is from a notoriously Israel-hating site that tries to twist everything into as negative a depiction of Israel as possible. And EVEN THEN all they can manage is this?

It's also very sad that the daughter was delayed for a few hours and then questioned. :(
Truly monsters, those Israelis are. Monsters!

[Tom Joad]

57. "Administrating"... you mean a military dictatorship over the West Bank.

Nearly every aspect of life is subject to permission from the Israeli military authorities.

Where Palestinians build homes (or denied to build homes), where Jewish settlers build homes (and then that means Palestinians have no accesss to that land, or the land around it), where settler sewage is put (in Palestinian land) what land is taken for the Annexation Wall, if a settler attacks a Palestinian child, if the settler is to be arrested (or even questioned), What power plants are left operational (subject to Israeli bombing), where people can fish (severely restricted in Gaza), what trade can happen or not happen. All subject to Israeli control.

For 40 years.

Talk of the Palestine Authority is really a joke, it really has so little power or real authority as to make it useless.

[The Magistrate]

39. If You Were A Palestinian Who Was A Refugee From '48, Mr. Joad

You would be a minimum of fifty-nine years old....

[Tom Joad]

46. Profound thought, Magi.

Has nothing to do with the point, but you do good math, and we appreciate that.

My point was that refugees are not allowed to return, while people who have historical ties, by direct family ties, are not allowed to return. Many who have been forced off this land, or their parents or grandparents, are not allowed to return, contrary to international law.

Most of these people in New Jersey have no family ties (even going back many generations) to this land.


http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
Article 49

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons do demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

[Lithos]

62. 54

The law wasn't enacted until 1953 as I recall.

L-

[breakaleg]

8. You wonder how they can sell land that's not even theirs.

[Solo_in_MD]

20. It may have been acquired legally

though the Arab governments often will not recognize property sold to jews

[Shaktimaan]

21. It's in the west bank, so by international standards it isn't "ownable" yet,

unless it is land that has been owned from before 1967. Which it clearly isn't.

Right now the whole West Bank is not part of any state, it is 'free land'. All of it is occupied by Israel but its rightful national owners are to be decided through negotiations between the PLO and Israel. Until then, Israel actually has the right to administer the area as it sees fit so while it may not be technically illegal for them to sell plots there is no guarantee that those plots will still belong to the purchasers in a decade's time. In which case Israel will probably reimburse the homeowners.

But aside from legality, it is a pretty obvious challenge to the goals of realistic peacemakers on both sides. It's meant to be a punishment and an incentive, (make peace while you have some land left.) It is counterproductive and obnoxious and hopefully it will get squashed.

[Lurking Dem]

22. Aren't Americans getting in on the act

because Israel stopped subsidizing the building?

[Tom Joad]

23. They are creating (illegal) facts on the ground. Israel shows no willingness to leave the West Bank

Never has. The "incentive" is making life so miserable for Palestinians it encourages them to leave the West Bank entirely, or at least to cram into Bantustans (Palestans?)-- smaller and densely populated centers, and leave the rest of the West Bank for Israel.

[breakaleg]

24. Exactly. What they'll say is 'what's a few more houses?' but the truth is,

as we've seen, they will never remove those people from that land. And to say otherwise is an outright lie.

[Tom Joad]

25. They have only offered to remove a few isolated settlements...

besides, if Israel is placing settlers there only as "bargaining chips", or as "incentives" then while it is committing a crime against the Palestinian people first and foremost, (who will have furthers obstacles placed in their homeland, where they must travel around) Israel is also making these Jewish Settlers into pawns on a chess board. Morally bankrupt policy for everyone.

[Shaktimaan]

28. What makes you think so, especially with such conviction?

Israel has abandoned settlements before. And the camp david 2000 proposal offered all but the largest settlement blocks back to the PA.

I'd also add that you seem extraordinarily sure of yourself in predicting the eternal future of a conflict that's proven itself to be notoriously difficult to predict. To the extent that you see fit to label any who disagree with your specific points "liars" and not even "mistaken." I mean, do you think you have such an ironclad grasp of even the past history or the current situation that foresight like this seems plausible?

Probably. In that case, do you have any more clear-cut premonitions that I might be able to take to the bank?

[breakaleg]

31. Please. When talk of removing the settlements comes up, they talk of a few

small ones that are far away from anything. Not the very large cities they've made. They have no intention of removing those ever. East Jerusalem? Those are illegal as well.

Settlements are settlements. All of them are illegal. I have no time for rationalizations about why some must stay.

They abandoned the ones in Gaza. I forget the numbers, but didn't double the number of settlers removed from Gaza then move into settlements in the West Bank just after the withdrawal? That's not withdrawal - they just shifted them around. Are they going to make some of those same settlers withdraw from the West Bank, making two withdrawals for those families?

I seriously doubt it.

You'll have to show me where I called people "liars". I'd love to see it.

[Shaktimaan]

33. They didn't transfer people from Gaza to WB.

I'm not double checking this instant but to my recollection when Gaza was evacuated along with a few small WB settlements the settlers were brought to Israel proper and while they were supposed to get compensation and aid in relocating the whole thing has been a fiasco and the settlers have been bogged down in red tape, even still uncompensated today. I could care less, I hate those guys.

Anyway, at that time there were plans to dismantle other WB settlements as part of unilateral disengagement which were then scrapped after Hamas gained power and the attacks against Israel jumped. It wasn't until a while later that they approved new construction, I think they started in E. Jerusalem suburbs. But by now it has more than offset the 8000 settlers that left Gaza, you're right about that.

Here's the thing to understand, most settlements are tiny. Half have less than 500 people and the six largest house most of the rest. For the most part these enclaves are near the border or are suburbs of east Jerusalem, centralized and compact, not spread out all over. They are clearly not going to be torn down, they'll be incorporated into Israel while the small ones, which cover most of the land utilized by the settlements, are surely going to be destroyed. But the Palestinians themselves have expressed that they could live with Israel keeping some of these areas, namely around Jerusalem. At any rate, they'll have to.

And while I understand that you do not like the settlements, they are not illegal. The West Bank is not guaranteed to strictly belong to Palestinians alone, the area has never been an official part of any state since the ottoman empire, both sides have legitimate claims to areas, and their own agreements, signed by the PLO, clearly state that the border and territories are to be settled in negotiation. It is not as though Palestinians were evicted to make room for these settlements, the actual ownership of the land is disputed. Additionally, there have been no binding UN orders or court judgements ruling against the settlements. And Israel has been given the power to administrate the OT as they see fit until a just peace is declared. So, unless something happened that I don't know about, you are just assuming that they are illegal based on the opinions of organizations whose outlook you prefer. Yet there still remain 2 sides to the argument.

As for your statement...

Exactly. What they'll say is 'what's a few more houses?' but the truth is, as we've seen, they will never remove those people from that land. And to say otherwise is an outright lie.

So, anyone who says anything otherwise than that Israel will never remove the new settlers is outright lying. Right? This was your statement, correct?

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Of course the settlements are illegal...

And while I understand that you do not like the settlements, they are not illegal. The West Bank is not guaranteed to strictly belong to Palestinians alone, the area has never been an official part of any state since the ottoman empire, both sides have legitimate claims to areas, and their own agreements, signed by the PLO, clearly state that the border and territories are to be settled in negotiation.

No, the actual ownership of the West Bank isn't disputed. Israel holds no legitimate claim over either the West Bank or Gaza. I'm kind of curious as to what sort of negotiations you would think would result in a West Bank annexed by Israel?

It is not as though Palestinians were evicted to make room for these settlements, the actual ownership of the land is disputed.

Zufim, where about 200 families live, is built on 136 hectares (336 acres) of land confiscated from Jayyous in 1986. An Israeli rights group, Bimkom, says that developers in Zufim plan to build about 1,200 new homes. Yehezkel Lein, a researcher for another Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem, said the military government in the occupied territories had issued permits for the work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1372963,00.html


Additionally, there have been no binding UN orders or court judgements ruling against the settlements. And Israel has been given the power to administrate the OT as they see fit until a just peace is declared.

I'm pretty sure we've been through this before. The Fourth Geneva Convention is what makes the Israeli settlements in occupied territory illegal. Last time I checked, the Geneva Convention was a binding legal document. It's what gives Israel the power to administrate the OT, but yr claim that Israel can do as they see fit is completely incorrect. Israel is legally allowed to continue a military occupation until a just peace is declared, but it is not allowed to alter the character of the occupied territories the way it is doing.

'Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention(1) states categorically: "...The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population in the territory it occupies." And Article 55 of the Hague Regulations(2) forbids the occupying State from changing the character and nature of state property, except for security needs and for the benefit of the local population. Israel’s building of settlements, roads and related infrastructure for Israeli civilians in the West Bank and Gaza does not meet these two exceptional criteria.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, in force since 1 July 2002, includes among the war crimes within the jurisdiction of the court the "transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies..." "when committed as part of a plan or policy or a part of a large scale commission of such crimes" (Article 8 (2) (b) (viii) ). This crime is further defined in the Elements of Crimes, a supplementary instrument to the Rome Statue adopted in September 2002.'

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE150852003

I'm pretty sure I already posted a link to an old DU thread (hat tip to Jack Rabbit) concerning the legality of Israeli settlements in a reply to an earlier post of yrs where you claimed the settlements weren't illegal. If you didn't read it before, read it now, because it really is a comprehensive discussion which clearly explains why the settlements are legal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=2918&forum=DCForumID30&archive=yes#13

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Kick for Shakti...

I'd like to hear any rebuttals you've got after you've read the old DU thread I gave you a link to :)

[Shaktimaan]

43. you got it.

I wanted to give you a substantial rebuttal so I am preparing my arguments beforehand to try and keep it as cogent as possible. But just really fast... I read the link and it looked like the main argument there was the old "4th Geneva convention only applies to forcible transfer, so blah blah etc." which is a total bullshit argument. I hate that argument it is a dishonest reading of the convention, especially since the contextual notes to the convention specifically state the contrary. Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine.

No, no, no. I have REAL arguments. I'll give you my understanding of the legal aspect and then try and sketch out my opinion on the ethical/practical side of things. Sit tight, I'll pull it together in a day or so.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. It'll give me something to sink my teeth into, so I'll keep an eye on this thread n/t

[Shaktimaan]

50. Cool. Let's start with this.

OK, sorry this took awhile. I want to try and make a comprehensive argument, so rather than try and do it all at once and never end up finishing I'm going to split it up into a few posts. Note that there's a difference between arguing this issue from a "moral" as opposed to a "legal" standpoint. I am going to focus on the legal at this time and we can discuss the murkier ethical considerations later as they require more conjecture and opinion when weighing the sum of each side's complex claims and historical rights.

First I want to address the issue of "ownership" as it relates to the rights of Israelis vs. Palestinians to settle in the west bank, golan heights and gaza. You assert that there's no dispute as to ownership, the nation/nationality who has a clear and recognized right to the land over the other nation's claims. Taken at face value, there's nothing I could find to back this claim up. No one has ruled as to Palestinian rights to the land, and certainly not exclusively. You are confusing rulings made on Israel's claim as being the equivalent of verification that it then, by default, belongs to Palestine. That's not how it works. But let's look more closely at the valid rulings and history of the area to determine what treaties should be given weight in settling this question.

First of all, the land is disputed, not occupied as often stated. Occupied refers to land that was part of a sovereign state, then invaded by another state. Since the land in question was never part of a recognized state and was previously inhabited in part by the citizens of Israel who themselves were expelled by an occupying power the land is disputed territory.

Occupied territory is territory — another's sovereign territory — that has been conquered by war, or invaded. It is distinguished from a colony where there is no war, conquest (meaning military), or sovereignty of the territory.

The West Bank (current), and the Gaza Strip (until 2005), are often referred to as the occupied territories, however their status was, and for the West Bank continues to be, disputed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_territory

Next, Israel's borders have never been defined. The armistice agreements of 49 were never considered Israel's borders at Arab insistence. So any attempt to paint Israel's 49 borders as being the "true" ones is disingenuous. No borders were set except by individual negotiations as happened with egypt in 78.

The armistice agreements were intended to serve only as interim agreements, until they would be replaced by permanent peace treaties. However, no peace treaties were actually signed until decades later.
Excepting the agreement with Lebanon, the armistice agreements were clear (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent or de jure borders. The Egyptian-Israeli agreement stated "The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."
The Jordanian-Israeli agreement stated: "... no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations" (Art. II.2), "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto." (Art. VI.9)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements

The UN partition plan also does not hold as legally binding in terms of defining borders. First of all, it was a general assembly resolution, none of which have binding status. Secondly, as it was rejected wholesale by every Arab contingent, any legitimacy it may have had was lost. It remains no more valid than the Peel Plan in this regard. Jordan's occupation of the land was also seen as illegitimate and not considered legal except by the UK.

So the last binding treaty determining rights to this area was the league of nations mandate given to Britain, which ensured Israel's right to settle those areas.

Actually, the last international legal allocation of territory that includes what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory: "recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." The members of the League of Nations did not create the rights of the Jewish people, but rather recognized a pre-existing right, that had been expressed by the 2,000-year-old quest of the Jewish people to re-establish their homeland.
Moreover, Israel's rights were preserved under the United Nations as well, according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, despite the termination of the League of Nations in 1946. Article 80 established that nothing in the UN Charter should be "construed to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments." These rights were unaffected by UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 1947 -- the Partition Plan -- which was a non-binding recommendation that was rejected, in any case, by the Palestinians and the Arab states.

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm

"The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use".

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Israeli%20Settlements%20and%20International%20Law

Finally, claims that a set border has already been established marking out Palestinian territory as opposed to Israel's is not supported by Palestinian agreements that state that any borders will be determined by future negotiations.

The status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip can only be decided by agreement between the parties. During the 1990s, Israel and the Palestinians agreed that the final status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is not yet resolved and should be decided in peaceful negotiations.

Furthermore, the fact that there were no established sovereigns in the West Bank or Gaza Strip prior to the Six Day War means that the territories should not be viewed as "occupied" by Israel. When territory without an established sovereign comes into the possession of a state with a competing claim - particularly during a war of self-defense - that territory can be considered disputed.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfaarchive/2000_2009/2003/2/disputed%20territories-%20forgotten%20facts%20about%20the%20we

So, in short, the territories do not ipso facto belong to Palestine alone, rights to them are disputed. And Israel's borders in regards to them have never been set, agreed to by all parties involved.

Next I'll talk about specific statutes you mentioned like the Rome statute or the Hague ones and recent UN and ICJ rulings. But not tonight. I'm tired.

---------------

EDIT: I almost forgot one last thing.
If the territories belong to Palestine then why does the PLO charter uncategorically relinquish any claim to them?

The Palestinian National Charter of 1964 stated: "This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area."<8>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League_and_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict

[breakaleg]

51. I have one question. Who, other than Israel, believes the territories are disputed rather than

occupied?

[Shaktimaan]

55. That's politics, not law.

One thing at a time, my friend. We'll get to it later.

[breakaleg]

56. So the answer is Israel only. Enough said. And that is why I find that entire argument bogus.

[Shaktimaan]

58. No. The answer is that I am building an organized argument broken up into sections.

And the political aspect is something that I'll talk about in detail later. Right now I am talking about the relevant laws and agreements that the territories are subject to.

But your statement is very telling. Essentially you are saying that established law doesn't matter. That politics and the individual opinions of nations with various interests in the conflict's outcome are far more important than the law. It is pretty easy to show the strong bias that many nations have against Israel as evidenced by the double standard they are judged by. Your belief implies that it is acceptable to apply international law differently depending on how popular or how much political influence the nation in question wields. One might ask then, what is the point of even having laws if they are to be arbitrarily applied?

Since you're being annoying though, the answer to your question is "America." But there are many other nations that side with Israel in various legal disputes such as the jurisdiction of the ICJ, calling into question who is authorized to make a decision on the status of the territories.

It is not surprising that at the United Nations, the U.S. has opposed the phraseology of "occupied Palestinian territories." In March 1994, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright stated: "We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 War as occupied Palestinian territory."

http://www.jcpa.org/art/brief1-1.htm

An obvious question would also be, "If the territories are indeed occupied by Israel, who are they occupied from?" Jordan and Egypt? A non-existent Palestinian state whose leaders long ago abandoned any claim to the land in question? The Ottoman Empire? England? And what do you base your answer on? Law? Public opinion? Statements released by the Arab League?

Since we are talking about LAW right now, you might want to try sticking to that. Unless you are having trouble finding legal evidence to support your claim, in which case feel free to continue trying to desperately change the subject with simplistic one-liners.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. That's cool. I appreciate the attempt at a comprehensive argument...

Do you want me to wait till you've finished yr series of posts before I respond? I'm happy either way you want to go.

I just wanted to check and make sure I'm on the right track when it comes to yr argument so far, so let me know if I'm reading it wrong. Yr argument is that the issue of legality of the settlements in the West Bank (and previously Gaza) aren't covered by the Geneva Convention because the West Bank is not seen by you as occupied territory, but rather disputed territory?

[Violet_Crumble]

61. Just in case you've missed this thread...

It's sunk pretty quick so it'd be easy to have missed it. I'll give it another day or so before I point out the massive flaws in yr argument because I would like to make sure that I'm on the right track when it comes to the crux of yr argument...

[Violet_Crumble]

63. Another kick for Shakti n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Yr claim that they aren't occupied territories is totally incorrect...

Yr first link to a Wikipedia article that tries to claim the Occupied Territories aren't occupied, but disputed is accompanied by a large-arse disclaimer at the top of the article: This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed. Some tatements may be disputed, incorrect, biased or otherwise objectionable. Please read the discussion on the talk page before making substantial changes. Those sorts of disclaimers shouldn't be ignored. I tend to think that some Joe Blow internet surfer voicing an opinion at Wiki carries far less weight than UN Resolution 242 which said 'Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security'

If you think the term 'occupied' only applies to territory that was part of a sovereign state, maybe you can explain why you think that East Timor was never occupied by Indonesia but was merely 'disputed' territory where Indonesia actually had some legitimate claim to that territory?

Next, Israel's borders have never been defined. The armistice agreements of 49 were never considered Israel's borders at Arab insistence. So any attempt to paint Israel's 49 borders as being the "true" ones is disingenuous. No borders were set except by individual negotiations as happened with egypt in 78.

Actually, you'll find that Ben Gurion himself never defined Israel's borders for obvious reasons. Claiming that Israel's borders aren't set is a double-edged sword, because using that particular argument opens up the way for the argument that if Israel doesn't have defined borders then if the Palestinians end up taking a big chunk of Israel as their own, there's nothing wrong with that as no border existed anyway...

The UN partition plan also does not hold as legally binding in terms of defining borders. First of all, it was a general assembly resolution, none of which have binding status. Secondly, as it was rejected wholesale by every Arab contingent, any legitimacy it may have had was lost. It remains no more valid than the Peel Plan in this regard. Jordan's occupation of the land was also seen as illegitimate and not considered legal except by the UK.


Yr argument here is basically an argument that the Resolution that brought Israel into being is an illegitimate one, hence Israel's creation was illegitimate. Not a very good argument. Nor is trying to argue that only certain parts of the Resolution held any legitimacy. It's either all or none...


So the last binding treaty determining rights to this area was the league of nations mandate given to Britain, which ensured Israel's right to settle those areas.

Israel didn't exist in 1922, and apart from that the Mandate is no longer valid. The British wiped their hands of the Mandate and responsibility for it was handed to the UN.

Finally, claims that a set border has already been established marking out Palestinian territory as opposed to Israel's is not supported by Palestinian agreements that state that any borders will be determined by future negotiations.

Of course future borders between Israel and Palestine will have to be negotiated. That, however, does not mean that Israel has a legal right to build settlements in the West Bank and claim that it has a legitimate claim to that territory. It doesn't...

So, in short, the territories do not ipso facto belong to Palestine alone, rights to them are disputed. And Israel's borders in regards to them have never been set, agreed to by all parties involved.

The Occupied Territories belong to the people who have lived there for centuries, and those people are the Palestinians. Don't you think it's incredibly selfish to not only want Israel, but also the territory that has been earmarked for a Palestinian state?

EDIT: I almost forgot one last thing.
If the territories belong to Palestine then why does the PLO charter uncategorically relinquish any claim to them?

Probably for similar reasons that Israel refused to acknolwedge Jordan's occupation of the West Bank, but now tries to claim its own occupation and claims to the territory are legitimate...

[Englander]

36. A couple of educational links -

"Out of Gaza and into the West Bank

By Greg Myre The New York Times
TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2005
OFRA, West Bank A distraught Yuval Unterman was carried out of his home by Israeli soldiers in a Gaza Strip settlement last Wednesday. After five hours in their hot, cramped station wagon, he and his family took up temporary residence in this West Bank settlement.

Of the 39 families evacuated from the Gaza settlement of Morag, 23 are now here in Ofra, a large settlement not far from the Palestinian city of Ramallah. As the kids played Monday on the grassy grounds beneath tall palm trees, the uprooted Gaza settlers said they wanted to remain together as a community, and had reached no decisions yet on where they would ultimately live.

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/08/22/news/settlers.php

And while I understand that you do not like the settlements, they are not illegal.

" Land Grab: Israel's Settlement Policy in the West Bank

Historical Background

Since 1967, each Israeli government has invested significant resources in establishing and expanding the settlements in the Occupied Territories, both in terms of the area of land they occupy and in terms of population. As a result of this policy, approximately 380,000 Israeli citizens now live on the settlements on the West Bank, including those established in East Jerusalem (this report does not relate to the settlements in the Gaza Strip).

During the first decade following the occupation, the Ma'arach governments operated on the basis of the Alon Plan, which advocated the establishment of settlements in areas perceived as having "security importance,” and where the Palestinian population was sparse (the Jordan Valley, parts of the Hebron Mountains and Greater Jerusalem). After the Likud came to power in 1977, the government began to establish settlements throughout the West Bank, particularly in areas close to the main Palestinian population centers along the central mountain ridge and in western Samaria. This policy was based on both security and ideological considerations.

The political process between Israel and the Palestinians did not impede settlement activities, which continued under the Labor government of Yitzhak Rabin (1992-1996) and all subsequent governments. These governments built thousands of new housing units, claiming that this was necessary to meet the "natural growth” of the existing population. As a result, between 1993 and 2000 the number of settlers on the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) increased by almost 100 percent.

International Law

The establishment of settlements on the West Bank violates international humanitarian law, which establishes the principles applying during war and occupation. Moreover, the settlements lead to the infringement of international human rights law.

International humanitarian law prohibits the occupying power to transfer citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit the occupying power to undertake permanent changes in the occupied area, unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.

The establishment of the settlements leads to the violation of the rights of the Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe the right to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement.

The illegality of the settlements under international humanitarian law does not affect the status of the settlers. The settlers constitute a civilian population by any standard, and include children, who are entitled to special protection. Although some of the settlers are part of the security forces, this fact has absolutely no bearing on the status of the other residents of the settlements.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/200205_Land_Grab.asp

[MrPrax]

38. Ironic...

and why would they name themselves (Amana Settlement Movement) after a well-known 19th century Christian movement from Germany?

Amana Colonies:

The Amana Colonies are a group of settlements of German Pietists in Iowa comprising seven villages. Calling themselves the Ebenezer Society or the Community of True Inspiration, die Gemeinde der wahren Inspiration, they first settled in New York state near Buffalo in what is now the Town of West Seneca. However, in order to live out their beliefs in more isolated surroundings they moved west to the rich soil of east-central Iowa (near present-day Iowa City) in 1855. They lived a communal life until the mid 1930s.

Wiki


From the Amana Colonies' own site:

Willkommen!

Guten Morgen!
(Good Morning!)

The Amana Colonies have been a landmark on the Iowa prairie for over 150 years - reminding us of a simpler time. A time we often yearn for in today's rush of corporate ladder climbing and the endless pursuit of discount shopping.

The name Amana means to "remain faithful". We have, in many ways, remained faithful to our communal culture; historical buildings have been preserved; the Amana Church remains active; the traditions of quality products are alive in the Colonies. You will not see discount stores or chain restaurants; you will not see large retailers. Even our convenience store was built to respect the architectural traditions of the Colonies.

What will you see in the Amana Colonies? Historical buildings dating to the mid-1850's, made of local materials...wood, sandstone, locally fired brick and limestone. You will discover an amalgamation of architectural styles, coupling traditional German craftsmanship and the straight lines and details of Colonial America. You will see three board wooden fences, fruit trees and gardens. The smokestack of the woolen mill stands stark against the rising sun; the blossoms of the Lily Lake sway gently in the summer breeze.

Certainly there have been changes in the Colonies, fewer gardens, less trees, a new business here and there. But the spirit of communal Amana remains...it is reflected in the grape trellis standing sentinel against the side of a home or in the faded, wooden weather vane atop a centuries old barn. The spirit of communal Amana is alive in the hint of German accent you might catch on the street. The Amana Colonies are a place where you can handcraft your experience ... a place as unique as you ... a place where the best treasures are searched for. The Amana Colonies are not just another cookie-cutter getaway; stop-in, stay for awhile, escape the ordinary.

Amana Colonies

Now why the hell would a bunch of New Jersey land speculators choose a moniker related to one of many obscure European utopian religious sects, who obsess over the Old Testament and dress in black. If they were Amish or Hutterites, I could understand it?

Oh wait a minute...now I get it ;-)