Longer video of Jewish civlians under attack in 'Palestinian' village
Here's a longer video than the one I posted earlier about the Jewish civilians who were attacked and held hostage in a 'Palestinian' village on Tuesday. The narration is in Hebrew, but what you'll see in this video is frightening.
Let's go to the videotape. More after the video.
The source of the video is Israel's Channel 10 newscast from Tuesday night.
The video says that the army suspects that this was intended to be a 'price tag' attack in revenge for the army's destruction earlier in the day of 'illegal buildings' in an 'outpost.' According to information I have seen, those buildings were built on land that is not privately owned - or owned at all.
Two Israelis were hospitalized as a result of the incident, and seven have been arrested.
According to Channel 10, the IDF does not believe the Jews' story that they went on a hike....
Obama's embassy in Israel tries to pressure Israeli courts
It's been... for me personally... one of those days... which explains the lack of posts today....
The Obama administration has apparently decided that we are a banana republic whose citizenry requires their protection against our abusive court system. And that's all true. Except that they're protecting the side that needs no protection.
Obama's embassy in Israel showed up in court on Wednesday morning to 'gently persuade' the Israeli government not to legalize four 'outposts' in Judea and Samaria. And when it was over they smugly insisted that they weren't interfering in the judicial process. Right.....
“We do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement
activity and oppose any efforts to legalize settlement outposts, which
would undermine peace efforts and would contradict Israeli commitments
and obligations,” US Embassy spokesman Geoff Anisman told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.
He added that the United States position on these points has been clear and has not changed.
Anisman
spoke in the aftermath of a High Court of Justice hearing on a Peace
Now petition demanding that the state enforce the law and demolish six
unauthorized West Bank outposts.
The state, however, has told the
court verbally and in writing that it intends to legalize four of them;
Givat Assaf, Ma’aleh Rehavam, Givat Ho-Roeh and Mitzpe Lachish.
A US embassy representative was at the hearing, but refused to speak to the press.
The
Legal Forum for the Land of Israel immediately condemned his presence
there, charging that it was a blatant US attempt to interfere with
Israel internal legal procedures.
But Anisman said US
representatives often went to court proceedings and Knesset sessions as
part of their routine work to monitor Israeli activity. This is similar
to how US embassies in other countries operate, he said.
Really? Someone get Matthew Lee to show up at the State Department briefing today and ask whoever gives the briefing to name another country in which the United States shows up for court hearings. I will guarantee you that if there is such another country, it is not a member of the OECD and it is most certainly a third-world country. It almost certainly will not be a country that has an adversarial judicial system.
Peace Now Executive Director Yariv Oppenheimer said, however, that he
did not recall seeing a US representative at past hearing on the
outposts. He added that he has seen in the past European representatives
observe court hearing on human rights issues.
"I believe the
presence of an embassy representative was a message to the government
and not to the court, that the issue of the West Bank outposts is very
important to the US," Oppenheimer said.
Kerry calls Oren to protest 'outpost legalizations'
Last Thursday, I reported that the Israeli government has decided to legalize four 'outposts' on which Jews have lived for years, rather than expelling more Jews from their homes. That action resulted in a highly unusual protest from US Secretary of State John FN Kerry to Israel's ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren.
A senior Israeli official told Haaretz that after Kerry learned of
the Israeli decision last Thursday, he personally called Oren and
requested clarifications, stressing that the move undermines his efforts
to restart negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Kerry
requested that the government rethink its decision, or at least postpone
the outposts’ legalization.
A
phone call from the secretary of state to a foreign ambassador to
demand explanations and voice a protest is considered a very unusual
move, one that indicates Kerry’s anger at the Israeli decision. Such
protests are usually conveyed through lower-level channels.
...
Responding a question from Haaretz, a State Department spokeswoman
said the administration had raised the issue at a high level with the
Israeli government’s representatives in Washington. Aharon Sagi, the
Israeli embassy spokesman, declined comment.
The
four outposts are Givat Assaf, located near Beit El; Mitzpeh Lachish in
the South Hebron Hills; Ma’aleh Rehavam in Gush Etzion; and Givat
Haroeh, located near the settlement of Eli. The decision to legalize
them, and Kerry’s protest, both came on the eve of the secretary of
state’s fourth visit to the region.
Kerry is due to meet Netanyahu in Jerusalem on Thursday and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah on Friday. He is then expected to return for further talks with both leaders the following week.
'The eve of the secretary of
state’s fourth visit to the region'? Actually, the decision was announced a week before Kerry planned to visit, giving him more than enough time to cancel if he chose to do so. Recall that in 2011, President Hussein Obama gave a speech calling for Israel to withdraw to the indefensible '1967 border' as Netanyahu was boarding a plane to Washington. Kerry has no cause for complaint.
Change: State seeking to legalize four 'illegal outposts'
Finally some positive change from our new government. The government is seeking to legalize four 'illegal outposts' that were allegedly built on 'private Palestinian land.' The most prominent of the four is Givat Assaf (pictured).
Until Tuesday it had been assumed that the Givat Assaf outpost
on Route 60, in the Binyamin region of the West Bank – would be demolished
because it had been built on private Palestinian property.
But last year
the Givat Assaf residents told the court they had purchased much of the land on
which their outpost, of some 30 families, was built.
On Tuesday the state
said that it accepted the purchase claims.
It explained that the upper
political echelon had ordered the civil administration and the Coordinator for
Government Activities in the Territories to weigh the possibility of legalizing
Givat Assaf.
Such authorization, which would mean either creating a new
settlement or linking Givat Assaf to a nearby existing settlement, would fly in
the face of past promises Israel has made to the international community,
according to Hagit Ofran of Peace Now. Israel has promised not to create a new
settlement or to expand existing ones, Ofran said.
The state also dealt
with five other outposts that were part of Peace Now’s petition against six
outposts, which it first filed in 2005 and then refiled in 2007.
Read the whole thing. Chalk that up as the first positive change we have heard from the current government.
IDF takes apart another illegal 'Palestinian' outpost
It is no coincidence that these things consistently happen on the Sabbath. The IDF was called into action again on Saturday to remove an illegal 'Palestinian' outpost called al-Manatir near Shchem (Nablus).
Photos
posted on Twitter and Facebook showed security forces shooting tear
gas, and using pepper spray against the activists. The IDF said that
when soldiers arrived at the site, Palestinians attacked them with
stones.
The event was organized in part by the Popular Struggle Coordination
Committee, which had also tried to set up tents on an E1 hilltop, in an
unbuilt area of the Ma’aleh Adumim settlement. The tents are part of a
new movement by Palestinians to claim areas of the West Bank.
Saturday’s
eviction of the site outside Burin that the Palestinians called
Al-Manatir set forth a chain of events that lasted until it got dark and
involved the IDF, Border Police and settlers from Yitzhar and Har
Bracha.
There were also 'internationals' involved in the incident. It sounds like we need to do a better job of keeping them out of the area. If we can order 'violent settlers' to stay out of Judea and Samaria, why can't we keep the 'internationals' out as well?
Israel's security forces were caught flat-footed on Thursday night when 'Palestinians' set up tents and squatted on land located in E-1 between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim. They should not have been. The 'Palestinians' set up a Facebook page for the 'event' on December 30.
With all that our intelligence services supposedly monitor social media, you have to wonder where they were on this one.
Migron residents who bought land urged to 'resist' court order
The Supreme Court has ordered the expulsion of 50 Jewish families from the 'outpost' of Migron by August 28. That includes 17 families who have strong claims that they purchased the land on which their homes sit from the putative Arab landowners. Residents of nearby Jewish towns are urging the 17 families not to go quietly.
Givat Assaf outpost residents this week called on 17 families in the nearby Migron outpost to resist a High Court of Justice mandate that they must leave their homes by August 28.
"We the Givat Assaf residents, together with the nation of Israel will stand by your side,” they said in a letter they sent to Migron residents, which was leaked to the media Thursday.
Both outposts are located near each other, in the Binyamin Region of the West Bank.
“With Gods help, "we will be strong and be strengthened for our nation and for God's cities," they said in the letter.
In the document they made a distinction between the status of the other 33 families who live in the outpost, and a group of 17 who claim to have purchased the property on which their homes are located.
The High Court of Justice has ordered the state to evacuate the 50 outpost families next week, because their homes were built without permits on private Palestinian property.
Last month 17 Migron families petitioned the court to annul that verdict in their case, given that they have since bought the property, on which their 17 homes are located, from its Palestinian owners.
...
But the moment the state in its response to the court said that the residents had to leave even if their land was legally purchase, the situation changed significantly, the Givat Assaf residents said.
They noted that this state document set a precedent that did not bode well for future cases in which disputed land is purchased in Judea and Samaria.
There's a frequent commenter on this blog who often says that we need title surveys and ownership histories to prove our rights to the land. That's all well and good, but how do you fight back when you have all those things, you can prove that you bought the land from its putative 'rightful owners,' and the government decides to throw you out anyway?
The 'rule of law' in Israel is a farce. The 'Supreme Court' has no clothes, nor does it have a legal leg on which to stand. It and the government protect the rights of everyone but the country's Jewish citizenry. What could go wrong?
State won't oppose petition to keep Migron in place
The government's new Ministerial Committee on 'settlements' decided on Tuesday that the government will not oppose a petition to the High Court of Justice by the Jewish residents of Migron asking that the Court cancel its order that they be expelled from their homes no later than August 1.
Last summer, the High Court of Justice issued a binding order mandating the state to evacuate the outpost by August 1, because it was built without proper permits on land classified by the state as belonging to private Palestinians.
But early this month, outpost residents announced that they had purchased 2.5 out of 5 hectares on which the outpost is located from its Palestinian landowners.
Migron residents then petitioned the court to rescind its order given that they had documents proving recent proof of purchase.
The court agreed to hear their petition next Sunday. In advance of that hearing, the Ministerial Committee on Settlements – headed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu – met for over an hour Tuesday to decide on the state’s position, which the prosecutor’s office is scheduled to submit to the court on Wednesday.
According to a participant in the meeting, the ministers stood by the policy that homes built without permits on private Palestinian property, such as in the case of Migron, must be removed. But the ministers believe if the court authenticates the land purchase, than there was no reason to remove the homes.
They noted that the state was not party to the petition, nor had it initiated it. But that if it is asked to give its opinion, the state does not plan to oppose it.
And a reminder of the neighborhood in which we live....
After Migron residents filed their petition, the court placed a gag order on any details, which might identify the Palestinian property owners.
The Palestinian Authority imposes a death sentence on Palestinians who sell property to Jews.
Maybe the State will get its act together and pay for the land on which it told people to build after this one.
'Tomorrow's President has Today all wrong (#tomorrow12)
Two weeks ago, I attended a conference that is known as the President's Conference whose theme was 'Tomorrow' and used the Twitter hashtags #tomorrow12 and #tomorrow2012. Well, you can't get tomorrow right if you've got today all wrong, and Israel's President, conference sponsor Shimon Peres, has today all wrong.
In apparent criticism of the government report calling for the legalization of West Bank outposts which was released this week, President Shimon Peres said Tuesday at a ceremony honoring Theodor Herzl that the settlement enterprise serves a demographic threat to Israel as a Jewish state.
"Israeli settlement in territories densely populated by an Arab population could bring about a threatening demographic change; that is, it could endanger the Jewish majority in Israel" Peres said at the ceremony held at Jerusalem's Mount Herzl.
"It is doubtful that a Jewish State without a Jewish majority can remain Jewish," the president added.
For a moment, let's ignore the fact that Shimon Peres is a figurehead who has no truly elected position and no real political power. But he's also got the demographics all wrong.
There is no demographic threat to Israel's Jewish majority. Not even if you annexed all of Judea and Samaria tomorrow morning with its Arab residents. The demographic bogeyman is a lie.
Flouting international opinion, an Israeli government-appointed commission of jurists said Monday that Israel’s presence in the West Bank was not occupation and recommended that the state grant approval for scores of unauthorized Jewish settlement outposts there. The committee’s legal arguments, while nonbinding, could provide backup for the government should it decide to grant the outposts retroactive official status. But such a move would inevitably stir international outrage and deal a significant blow to prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement.
Why did Kershner use the term "international opinion" not "international law?" Also what did she mean by "non-binding?" This seems to be a legal opinion, not an agreement.
If the use of "opinion" was intentional that means that the international outrage is largely manufactured.
Kershner reports further:
Most of the world views the areas that Israel conquered from Jordan in the 1967 war, and where the Palestinians want to establish a future state, as occupied territory, and all Israeli construction there as a violation of international law. Israel distinguishes between its 120 or so established settlements in the West Bank and those that went up since the 1990s with some government support, but without formal government authorization. The three-member committee, led by Edmund Levy, a retired Supreme Court justice, confirmed a position long held by Israel that those territories are not occupied, since Jordan’s previous hold over them was never internationally recognized, and that their fate must be determined in negotiations.
Again, Kershner doesn't cite a specific legal reason why settlements are "a violation of international law," just that "[m]ost of the world views" it that way. When she cites the reasoning of the committee, she actually provides the legal reasoning.
I have no ideas if Kershner used the terms intentionally or not.
Of course Fatah objected:
Fatah, the mainstream Palestinian national movement led by President Mahmoud Abbas, issued a statement saying that the Levy committee’s conclusions were a “farce” that “mocked and defied the international community.” Palestinian officials noted that the report was published on the anniversary of the July 9, 2004, advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which determined that Israel’s construction of its barrier across the 1967 boundary, in West Bank territory, violated international law.
But the ICJ is a highly politicized body and its ruling is based on an assumption that the territories capture by Israel in 1967 are occupied. The Levi committee shows that those territories are not occupied.
The only independent Israeli sources Kershner cites are critical of the decision.
Israeli human rights organizations opposed to settlement slammed the report. “The Levy Committee’s suggestion to view illegal statements or actions by various ministers as government consent undermines the principles of the rule of law and good governance,” Michael Sfard, the legal adviser of Yesh Din, said in a statement. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel said that the report’s conclusions were “legally unfounded and their purpose is to authorize and deepen the injustice that Israeli governments are performing in the Occupied Territories in the past 45 years.”
Of course Israeli "human rights organizations" are "opposed to settlement" by definition. But that doesn't make their opinion legally correct.
Israel entered the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli legal experts traditionally resisted efforts to define the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied" or falling under the main international treaties dealing with military occupation. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign." In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948, in defiance of the UN Security Council. Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain (excluding the annexation of Jerusalem) and Pakistan, and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states.
And after Oslo:
Under Oslo, Israel transferred specific powers from its military government in the West Bank and Gaza to the newly created Palestinian Authority. Already in 1994, the legal advisor to the International Red Cross, Dr. Hans-Peter Gasser, concluded that his organization had no reason to monitor Israeli compliance with the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Gaza Strip and Jericho area, since the Convention no longer applied with the advent of Palestinian administration in those areas.13 Upon concluding the Oslo II Interim Agreement in September 1995, which extended Palestinian administration to the rest of the West Bank cities, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres declared: "once the agreement will be implemented, no longer will the Palestinians reside under our domination. They will gain self-rule and we shall return to our heritage."14 Since that time, 98 percent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has come under Palestinian jurisdiction.15 Israel transferred 40 spheres of civilian authority, as well as responsibility for security and public order, to the Palestinian Authority, while retaining powers for Israel's external security and the security of Israeli citizens.
Early on in the essay, Gold explains why the term "occupation" has been used in this context:
Three clear purposes seem to be served by the repeated references to "occupation" or "occupied Palestinian territories." First, Palestinian spokesmen hope to create a political context to explain and even justify the Palestinians' adoption of violence and terrorism during the current intifada. Second, the Palestinian demand of Israel to "end the occupation" does not leave any room for territorial compromise in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as suggested by the original language of UN Security Council Resolution 242 (see below). Third, the use of "occupied Palestinian territories" denies any Israeli claim to the land: had the more neutral language of "disputed territories" been used, then the Palestinians and Israel would be on an even playing field with equal rights. Additionally, by presenting Israel as a "foreign occupier," advocates of the Palestinian cause can delegitimize the Jewish historical attachment to Israel. This has become a focal point of Palestinian diplomatic efforts since the failed 2000 Camp David Summit, but particularly since the UN Durban Conference in 2001. Indeed, at Durban, the delegitimization campaign against Israel exploited the language of "occupation" in order to invoke the memories of Nazi-occupied Europe during the Second World War and link them to Israeli practices in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.4
Contrary to international opinion and the claims of Israeli human rights organizations, it is the loaded use of the term "occupation" that makes peace less likely, not the Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria.
Thus, if the charge that Israel’s hold on the territories is illegal is based on the charge of theft from its previous owners, Jordan’s own illegitimacy on matters of legal title and its subsequent withdrawal from the fray makes that legal case a losing one. Well before Jordan’s renunciation, Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School and undersecretary of state for political affairs in 1967 during the Six-Day War, argued that the West Bank should be considered “unallocated territory,” once part of the Ottoman Empire. From this perspective, Israel, rather than simply “a belligerent occupant,” had the status of a “claimant to the territory.” To Rostow, “Jews have a right to settle in it under the Mandate,” a right he declared to be “unchallengeable as a matter of law.” In accord with these views, Israel has historically characterized the West Bank as “disputed territory” (although some senior government officials have more recently begun to use the term “occupied territory”). Because neither Great Britain, as the former trustee under the League of Nations mandate, nor the since deceased Ottoman Empire—the former sovereigns prior to the Jordanians—is desirous or capable of standing up as the injured party to put Israel in the dock, we must therefore ask: On what points of law does the case against Israel stand?
Phillips also notes that after the Six Day War, Israel was eager to make peace with its neighbors who rejected such overtures out of hand. Had the Arabs been willing to make peace with Israel forty five years ago, there'd be no "occupation." (There also probably would have been no "Palestinians.") The claims of Israeli occupation seems less an exercise in good faith than an effort to get a "do over." Phillips point about Israel's willingness to make peace in the wake of the Six Day War, has been reinforced by the recent release of Israeli government deliberations after that war.
Although there were differences on the issues of the destiny of the West Bank, and on whether peace treaties should be based on international frontiers, ministers all spoke of peace with security arrangements. The positive answer to the security issue was finally approved by a majority of one, 10 to 9: it was decided that a peace agreement should ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Tiran, the Gulf of Aqaba, and the Suez Canal; the freedom of flight over them, and the demilitarization of the Sinai Peninsula. The formula agreed to by unanimity on June 19, 1967 was that "Israel proposes the conclusion of peace treaties with Egypt and Syria on the basis of the international frontiers and Israel's security needs." This proposal was presented to both Egypt and Syria, but no positive response came from either. Instead, the Arab Summit leaders at Khartoum announced on September 1, 1967 the three "nos." As a result of Khartoum, Prime Minister Eshkol wrote a month later, "I doubt whether the government would approve the decision of June 19 exactly as it stands." In view of the continuing Arab leaders' refusal to negotiate, the decision did indeed become invalid.
What this means, if implemented, is simple: The Israeli government would treat West Bank land as if it were land in Israel proper (pre-1967 Israel). Now, of course, if Israel were to treat the land of the West Bank as part of Israel, it would necessarily follow that it would have to treat the people who live on that land as Israeli citizens, extending them full voting rights, just as it extends citizenship to people who live in Israel proper, regardless of ethnicity. So: The natural consequence of this notion, if it is carried through to law, would be to extend voting rights to the Palestinians of the West Bank. This would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy, but the right-wing in Israel seems more enamored of land-ownership than it does of such antiquated notions as, you know, Zionism.
James Taranto deflected this argument: The U.S. has several unincorporated territories--insular possessions over which America exercises sovereignty but which are not part of the U.S. They are, in declining order of population (and omitting unpopulated islands), Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands. Residents of these territories do not have the right to vote in presidential elections. They have no representation in the Senate and only a nonvoting delegate or (in the case of Puerto Rico) resident commissioner in the House. ... Goldberg and others who repeat this trope need to explain why Israel can't have unincorporated territories if the U.S. can.
'Israel's behavior in Judea and Samaria does not befit a state that prides itself on the rule of law'
On Thursday, I blogged a report that was issued by a blue-ribbon panel headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy that looked at Israeli 'settlement' policy in Judea and Samaria. Some of the more mainstream media outlets have read the report (which I have not seen) and are now providing summaries.
“We wish to stress that the picture that has been displayed before us regarding Israeli settlement activity in Judea and Samaria does not befit the behavior of a state that prides itself on, and is committed to, the rule of law,” said the report, which was authored by three legal experts.
The experts are former Supreme Court justice Edmund Levy, former Foreign Ministry legal adviser Alan Baker and former deputy president of the Tel Aviv District Court Tchia Shapira.
In late January, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu appointed the trio – nicknamed the “outpost committee” – to investigate the legal status of unauthorized West Bank Jewish building.
...
The report did not overly focus on Israel’s diplomatic considerations with respect to the peace process or past pledges to the international community not to create new West Bank settlements.
Instead it looked at Israel’s obligation under international and domestic law.
The United Nations often states that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. It bases this on its understanding that Israel “occupies” the West Bank.
But the outpost report concluded that the classical laws of occupation “as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable to the unique and sui generis historic and legal circumstances of Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria spanning over decades.”
Similarly, it said, the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention against the transfer of populations is not applicable to the Israeli settlement activity in Judea and Samaria.
“Israelis have the legal right to settle in Judea and Samaria and the establishment of settlements cannot, in and of itself, be considered illegal,” according to the report.
Still, the report noted that unauthorized Jewish building, including some 100 outposts built from 1991 to 2005, had occurred with the help of government offices and ministries.
According to the report, unauthorized Jewish building in Judea and Samaria was “carried out with the knowledge, encouragement and tactic agreement of the most senior political level – government ministers and the prime minister.”
This building moved forward even though it lacked the proper permits and authorizations, the report said.
But, it added, the involvement of government offices and ministries in such activity means that “such conduct is to be seen as implied agreement.” It concluded that this “implied agreement” opened the door for Netanyahu’s government to legalize this construction if it so chooses.
The committee urged the government to clean house with regard to settlement activity by clarifying its policy on West Bank Jewish building and ensuring that all future settlement construction had the proper authorizations and permits.
Israel is no longer in a formative state, and construction must happen according to rules and procedures, the committee’s report said, adding that “all actions on this matter can only be in accordance with the law.”
It then issued a series of recommendations to retroactively legalize construction and to stop any further unauthorized building.
The committee called on the government to allow planning and zoning authorities to complete the authorization process for outposts and unauthorized settler building on state land. This should be done without any further need for additional political approval, the committee said.
“Pending completion of these proceedings and examination of the possibility of granting building permits, the state is advised to avoid carrying out demolition orders, since it brought about the present situation by itself,” the report said. It suggested that settlements built on land whose status is unclear should be considered “settlements whose legal status is pending.”
In bid to stave off expulsion, American Jewish philanthropist buys 80% of Migron lands
In a bid to stave off the expulsion of the outpost's Jews, an American Jewish philanthropist has purchased the land on which 66 of the 70 buildings in Migron sit at a cost of 'hundreds of thousands' of dollars (Hat Tip: Sunlight NM via Twitter). That comes to about 80% of the land.
In a last-minute attempt to prevent the evacuation of Migron, the largest illegal outpost in Judea and Samaria, representatives of the outpost recently bought more than 80 percent of its land from Palestinians claiming ownership over it, Israel Hayom has learned.
Residents of Migron hope that the move will now render unnecessary the High Court's order to evacuate the outpost by 1 August.
According to a source involved in the transaction, the land was acquired "in a completely legal and valid manner." While representatives of the community have refrained from publishing details of the transaction, the source said "more than one seller" was involved.
Both sides involved in the deal have also kept the identify of the donor secret, but revealed that he is a Jewish-Zionist American philanthropist who paid hundreds of thousand dollars for the land.
The deal was kept under such heavy secrecy that even Migron residents did not know all of the details of the transaction and were only likely to find out about it on Thursday.
Sounds like Irving Moskowitz to me. If it's him, more power to him.
Sixteen families are being expelled from their homes in Beit El's Ulpana neighborhood on Tuesday morning in accordance with the Supreme Court's diktat that they be expelled. Most of the families are expected to leave peacefully. The government will build them new homes... eventually....
Immediately after the prayer service, 16 families from the Ulpana outpost on the outskirts of the community will relocate to modular housing in Beit El, in keeping with the High Court of Justice mandate that their homes must be relocated by July 1.
On Thursday, another 17 families will leave.
The court has ordered the state to act against five apartment buildings and three caravans in Ulpana, which were built without permits on private Palestinian property. The state plans to move the structures onto an authorized tract of land in Beit El, in a process that will take a year.
Residents agreed to peacefully leave their homes in an agreement reached with the state last week. They did so in exchange for assurances from the government that it would build 300 new homes in Beit El and that the state would no longer support the demolition of Jewish homes in the West Bank in its responses to High Court petitions.
Ulpana residents objected to the term “voluntary evacuation,” since theirs was a forced and painful removal even if they were leaving peacefully.
They promised to continue to build and develop Judea and Samaria with the same determination which had brought them to Ulpana.
It is time to end the dictatorship of Israel's self-perpetuating leftist 'Supreme Court.' It is time for the representatives of the people of Israel to take control of the judicial selection process and to end the tyranny of the unelected court.
After a late meeting Tuesday night residents of five apartment buildings in Ulpana outpost, located on the outskirts of the West Bank settlement of Beit El, agreed to voluntarily evacuate their homes by July 1.
They did so only after the Prime Minister’s Office pledged to build 300 new homes in Beit El and to amend its policy with respect to the removal of unauthorized settlement homes on private Palestinian property, according to a statement to the media by Ulpana residents.
In May, the High Court of Justice ordered the state to demolish the buildings, which house 30 families. Three caravans have also been included in the mandate, so that in total 33 families are due to leave their homes.
Ulpana residents noted that building 300 housing units hardly compensated them for the loss of their initial homes.
They quoted a statement by the rabbi of Beit El, Zalman Melamed, in which he said that just as a father who lost a son cannot be compensated by ten new ones in exchange, so too, “the pain of losing these (initial homes) won’t lessen and the stain (this action creates) on the government won’t lessen.”
In their media statement Ulpana residents said they had agreed to voluntarily evacuate, because “we are peaceful people.”
They added that, “this battle between brothers is tearing apart the Israeli public in general, and our population in specific.”
They had agreed to leave, they said, after receiving guarantees from emissaries form the Prime Minister’s Office for 300 new homes in Beit El, along with a promise that the homes they live in now will be relocated.
In addition, they said, “the prime minister’s office, the prosecutor’s office and the Defense Ministry won’t send out statements about absurd decisions to destroy developing neighborhoods and settlements.”
They asked for this last pledge in hopes of preventing future demolitions of settler homes.
It remains to be seen whether this changes the fate of Migron and Amona, and whether the homes are ever actually built. My bet is that it will have no effect on the former, and that the homes will be built (or at least started while the current government is in power), but that it will take many years before they are ready.
“We have to defend these homes with our bodies,” said Itzhik Shadmi, who heads the Binyamin Citizens’ Committee.
“Everyone for whom the nation of Israel is dear, should come here,” he said.
“If thousands are here there won’t be any demolitions. This business that it is easy to tear down Jewish homes when thousand of unauthorized [Palestinian] homes are being built nearby in Area C. This terrible discrimination has to be stopped,” he said.
Shadmi, along with the Beit El Council head Moshe Rosenbaum and residents of the Ulpana outpost spoke with the media at a press conference they held in a large tent, which was set up outside the homes.
Some supporters have already set up sleeping tents in the parking lot outside the homes. They have also begun stockpiling tires, which were lined up Thursday night by the walkway in back of the Ulpana structures.
At the press conference, settlers warned against a civil war even as they said that they planed to conduct a non-violent protest.
The danger of a civil war is the result of the decision to destroy the homes, said Beit El Council head Moshe Rosenbaum.
“The person who is responsible for this situation is the one could neutralize this situation. It is in his hands,” said Rosenbaum, referring to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
“It is the right of the residents and the thousands who support them to sit in their homes and to passively protest this immoral, unjust and inhuman decision, and that is what is going to happen,” Rosenbaum said.
He said he opposed violence against soldiers and those who were there would do their best to prevent it.
“We are not an army. We are citizens,” Rosenbaum said.
Israel Television reported on Thursday night that the government is not disclosing when the expulsion will happen. I have a sick feeling that it will happen on the Sabbath - this week or next.
If you are staying in the Ulpana neighborhood, please drop me a note via email.
Some 300 people have moved in to Beit El's Ulpana neighborhood since the Knesset voted down a law that would have vitiated the Netanyahu-Barak government's agreement to expel its residents by July 1.
Hundreds of people have been flowing to the neighborhood of Givat HaUlpana in Beit El since the Knesset voted down a law that was intended to try to save it from destruction after the Supreme Court ruled that it should be demolished since the state prosecution did not present objections to an Arab's claim that the sale of the land to Jews was fraudulent.
About 300 people came to the neighborhood on Sunday, to raise the residents' spirits and to join the struggle for saving the neighborhood. Most of the visitors came from outside Judea and Samaria (Yehuda and Shomron). A group of about 100 people came from Ramat HaSharon, and another 50 came from Tzfat.
The organizers of the struggle say there has been a massive outpouring of support that is reminiscent of the struggle for Gush Katif.
"Twenty families already live in the location in tents and in the last few days we have received requests from additional families and groups that want to coordinate their arrival," an organizer said. "We are preparing logistically and organizationally to take in anyone who wants to help with the struggle."
Let's go to the videotape.
Hot fun in the summertime indeed.... You would have thought that the government would have learned by now not to do these things when the kids are off from school.... Let's hope that this time the results are better than Gush Katif.
Haaretz reports that the government plans to legalize 13 of the 18 contended 'outposts' in Judea and Samaria because they were not built on 'private Palestinian land.' The other five 'outposts' will be destroyed and their residents expelled from their homes over the next few months.
Because the 13 outposts are not built on privately-owned Palestinian land, the legalization process could presumably make the petitions against them moot.
The remaining five outposts cannot be legalized, because they are located on privately-owned Palestinian land, and so are slated for evacuation.
The first to go will be Beit El's Ulpana neighborhood, which the court has ordered dismantled by July 1. Next in line is Migron, an outpost near Ramallah, which must be dismantled by August 1.
Givat Assaf, an outpost close to Migron that houses 25 families, will likely be evacuated at some point this summer, though it's unclear when.
...
After that will be Amona, an outpost of 50 families located near Ofra. The government has promised to dismantle this outpost by the end of the year.
Mitzpeh Kramim is also slated for evacuation, but the government has not announced when that is slated to occur. Nor has it announced a timetable for the legalization of the other 13 outposts.
I doubt that it is going to be this simple - either for the 13 or for the five. What could go wrong?
For those trying to figure out the definition of 'private Palestinian land,' go here.
What the old yishuv would have done about the Ulpana
Previously, I related an anecdote I heard on Israel Radio about Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld zt"l, the 'anti-Zionist' leader of the old Yishuv during the pre-state period. Here's another one that has bearing on the government's decision this week to dismantle the Ulpana neighborhood in Beit El.
Rav Gellis explained the story took place in the time of HaGaon HaRav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld ZT”L and he felt that from this event one may extrapolate what should have been done concerning the Ulpana homes.
There was a property in Meah Shearim that belonged to sheikh, a resident of Kfar Lifta located in the Jerusalem corridor. One day, a member of the old yishuv decided to purchase that property for a number of families. 100 people became involved in the effort to make the purchase of 170 dunams (42.5 acres) to construct homes for 100 families.
It was realized that the actual property was too small to accommodate the new area that was to be constructed for the families, so each night, a number of people went out and moved the border markers a bit to enlarge the property on the south and west sides.
The sheikh was not present in the area and he did not measure the property. Apparently he did not become aware of the nighttime activities, which in actuality resulted in the borders being moved into an adjoining plot of land.
One of the old yishuv residents was not comfortable with what was taking place and decided to approach R’ Sonnenfeld to ask if the gezeila of the property is permitted.
The Sonnenfeld responded that it was not gezeila, but “pediya” (redeeming). “We are not stealing land but rather redeeming land. We are paying the Arab because this is the galus and there is no alternative but in essence, it is not his land”. Therefore, the actions are permitted and that area has become known as Meah Shearim.
The anti-Zionists led by Rav Sonnenfeld would have done a better job of running a country than the modern-day successors to Ben Gurion. For starters, they wouldn't have listened to the Supreme Court - only to God.
Netanyahu green lights 850 housing units in Judea and Samaria
This might discourage the 'Palestinians' from bringing lawsuits to establish ownership of land in Judea and Samaria. Prime Minister Netanyahu has approved the construction of 850 new homes for Jews in Judea and Samaria. 300 are in Beit El, which is where the Ulpana neighborhood is located, and the rest are elsewhere.
Housing and Construction Minister Ariel Atias announced Wednesday evening that his ministry would approve the construction of 551 housing units in the West Bank.
They will comprise 117 units in Ariel, 92 in Ma'aleh Adumim, 114 in Adam, 114 in Efrat and 84 in Kiryat Arba. The new housing units will be built in addition to the three hundred that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has already promised to build in Beit El following the evacuation of the apartment buildings in the West Bank outpost Ulpana.
This decision was reached in a conversation Wednesday between Netanyahu and Atias.
"Increasing the supply of land helps young couples, and construction in the West Bank strengthens the settlements. Although 30 apartments will be evacuated, 850 will be built instead. Under the circumstances, this is the appropriate solution," said Atias.
If they ever get built.... If these numbers hold up (and YNet is currently reporting that the places that will get new homes are 'Efrat, Gush Etzion and Karnei Shomron'), what would be most impressive is building in Kiryat Arba, which is beyond the 'security fence.' If YNet's formulation is correct, Karnei Shomron is also beyond the fence. And as to Adam (mentioned by JPost in the first link), I would bet that some of those homes are intended to be used by people expelled from Migron when and if that happens.
There are some ministers and deputy ministers who are going to vote to legalize the outposts on Wednesday despite threats to fire them. One party - HaBayit HaYehudi (Jewish Home) appears to be on its way out of the coalition. And one Likud minister and three deputy ministers have said that they will vote for the bill, and let Netanyahu dare to fire them.
Habayit Hayehudi's leader, Science and Technology Minister Daniel Herschkowitz, vowed to vote in favor of the bills despite Netanyahu's threat. Sources close to him left open a small possibility that he could back down at the last minute, but they said the most likely scenario would be that he would quit and take his party out of the coalition with him before Netanyahu got a chance to fire him.
"I am choosing between bad options, not good ones," he said in a meeting late Tuesday with his loyalists who tried to persuade him not to quit.
While a dozen Likud ministers expressed support for the bills in the past, it appeared Tuesday night that the only minister from the party ready to be fired over the issue was Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein, who is the only Likud minister who lives over the Green Line.
"Yuli has not changed his mind that he will not vote against bills that could save the Ulpana neighborhood from destruction," a source close to him said.
Along with Edelstein, three Likud deputies will be fired for voting for the bill: Deputy Regional Development Minister Ayoub Kara, Deputy Pensioners Affairs Minister Lea Ness, and Gila Gamliel, who is in charge of women's issues in the Prime Minister's Office.
"I was not born to be a deputy minister," Kara said. 'I am voting on principle. I have a path and I will stick to it. I don't believe that destroying Jewish homes is the way to solve the conflict with the Palestinians."
Gamliel said she was 'loyal to the prime minister but even more loyal to her conscience.'
Coalition chairman Ze'ev Elkin could also be fired for pushing for the legislation. Elkin said that rather than threaten ministers, Netanyahu should adopt policies that would prevent "a tsunami of destruction."
Shas ministers intend to leave the room to avoid getting fired but the party's MKs who are not ministers will vote in favor. Yisrael Beytenu is expected to do the same, but a party spokesman said no decision would be made until an official ruling about the Ulpana outpost is given by Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein.
The residents of Ulpana are already preparing for their expected evacuation. A few days ago a truck delivered dozens of tires to the neighborhood. The tires may be used by those who oppose the eviction if and when security forces arrive in the neighborhood.
The locals did not say who was responsible for the delivery.
The extent of the opposition on the day of the evacuation will apparently be determined by local rabbis, but extremists may resort to violence regardless of the community leaders' directives.
Matan Fishman of Rishon Lezion, who attended the demonstration in Jerusalem, said "it appears that Ulpana will be evacuated. If it does, we'll travel to the neighborhood and lie on the ground. We'll prove that we are not suckers."
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
