I searched for my home community.
I found it.
112. Name of settlement: Shiloh
Number of residents: 2011
Construction without approved plan:
1. The neighborhood of Shvut Rachel -- northeast of the approved plan. Detailed
plan number 205/2 that was approved for deposit but not yet published allows
the construction of 548 housing units (both in the neighborhood of Shvut
Rachel and in the settlement itself).
In fact most of the plan has already been realized in the neighborhood of Shvut Rachel (93 permanent buildings, 30 caravans and five public buildings) except for saturated building south of the neighborhood. The plan is in the boundary of state land and survey land except for an excess onto private land by nine caravans and two permanent buildings.
2. Northeast of the settlement, adjacent to plan number 205, leveling of 30 lots
for construction and a permanent building, exceeding state land.
3. Ground leveling for an industrial area south of the settlement while trespassing
onto private land.
4. An industrial building south of the settlement, next to the settlement access
A careful reading of this, and I have not yet checked any of the documents available to me so I cannot tell you if the numbers are correct or not, reveals:
a) "approved plan". This term is a simple bureaucratic procedure based on the decision made by the legal section of the relevant government office. Something not "approved" doesn't mean that an illegal act was done but that the final approval had not - as yet - been granted. Doing so does not invalidate the entire procedure.
b) "trespassing onto private land". In many cases in the past, and I have been out here, as a resident, for 28 years and more as an involved activist, when land is said to be "private", that is not always true. Claims are made and then need to be proven in court. The concept of "private land" is a bit nebulous when my neighbors are concerned. Are there deeds, tax records and other forms of proof or is it tradition or custom or land that belonged to someone else and somehow 'borrowed'.
c) "exceeding state land". Was the original map correct? If it is not "state land" it does not necessarily need to be "private land".
I know this may not seem the most solid explanation why Yesh Din's claims are not all they are supposed to be by Dror Etkes and Co. but I hope it provides a bit of background to the subject of land ownership.