Israel Matzav

US and EU protest the rule of law in Israel

Both the US and Sweden (the current President of the EU) summoned Israel's ambassadors on Tuesday to protest Israel's adherence to the rule of law.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman summoned Michael Oren [pictured. CiJ], Israel's ambassador to Washington, to tell him that the United States views Sunday's eviction of two Palestinian families from homes in East Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood as a "provocative" and "unacceptable" act that violates Israel's obligations under the road map peace plan.

Oren responded by saying that the buildings in question have been Jewish-owned since before Israel's founding, and that a court ordered the families' evictions because they had violated the terms of their leases.

...

Shortly before Oren was summoned by Feltman on Monday, Israeli Ambassador to Sweden Benny Dagan was summoned to that country's foreign ministry for a similar rebuke. Swedish officials told Dagan that they did not understand the timing of the evictions, nor do they accept the legal arguments behind the move. Sweden currently holds the European Union's rotating presidency.

Dagan counterattacked, saying that Israel was "extremely frustrated with Sweden's conduct" as president of the EU. Israel, he said, has taken steps to make life easier for West Bank Palestinians, while the Palestinians have merely entrenched themselves in their hard-line positions, and the EU has done nothing to help.

The Swedes rejected these claims, noting there is "no difference" between Sweden's positions on the peace process and Washington's.

Foreign Ministry Director General Rafi Barak responded by summoning the Swedish ambassador for talks, during which he told her that Jerusalem considers Stockholm's criticisms of Israel, since assuming the EU presidency, to be excessive.

Now some of you might be wondering why the vehement reaction to a court ruling that the Israeli government could argue was imposed upon it. I was wondering about that myself. The answer is contained in a statement made by the British Consulate in Jerusalem condemning the court ruling.

“Israel’s claim that the imposition of extremist Jewish settlers into this ancient Arab neighbourhood is a matter for the courts or the municipality is entirely unacceptable,” the consulate said in a statement. “Their actions are incompatible with Israel’s desire for peace. We urge Israel not to allow extremists to set the agenda.”

In other words, they are protesting the application of Israeli civil law to the city of Jerusalem (and it may be assumed that the Americans and the Swedes would take the same position).

But that position is disingenuous. When the Supreme Court ruled that the IDF had to move the 'security fence' closer to the 1949 armistice line - at substantial risk to Israelis - these countries were more than happy to obey the ruling. There cannot be a legal vacuum in Judea and Samaria - let alone in Jerusalem. Our putative allies cannot wish for civil law some of the time and martial law at other times depending upon which ruling suits them.

At the end of the day, the dispute over the two homes was a private property dispute and the court handled it as a private property dispute just as an American or a British court would have handled it. (Sweden has a different legal system). The complaints about the results are out of place.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:53 PM