Netanyahu to take closer look at State Prosecution’s outpost policy
ANALYSIS: Netanyahu plans to oversee all of the prosecution’s responses to the court himself • When responding to High Court petitions seeking to evacuate settlements, the State Prosecution consistently referred to a report on settlements and outposts compiled by attorney Talia Sasson, who is currently number 7 on the Meretz Knesset list.
Mati Tuchfeld, ISRAEL HAYOM
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s associates said this week that despite the big political victory over his right flank in the Ulpana affair, the general mood in the Prime Minister’s Office was still rather sour, especially because of the main blunder in this whole affair, which was, and still remains, the state’s response to the High Court of Justice on the Peace Now petition claiming private Palestinian ownership of the Ulpana land. (Initially, the State Prosecution, speaking on behalf of the government, vowed to evacuate the buildings, even before the court had deliberated on the petition. As a result, when the government voiced reluctance to evacuate, the court insisted that it live up to its commitment and ruled that the buildings be demolished.) The prime minister even told the Likud faction during a recent meeting that the Justice Ministry had launched an internal investigation into the conduct of the state in the matter. And if that weren’t enough, the State Control Committee, headed by MK Uri Ariel (National Union), has instructed the State Comptroller to compile a special report on the events.
The findings of the various investigations are expected to be more or less as follows: Before Netanyahu’s government assumed power, when responding to High Court petitions seeking to evacuate settlements, the State Prosecution consistently referred to a report on settlements and outposts compiled by attorney Talia Sasson in 2005. Sasson was a senior prosecutor in the State Prosecution’s Office during Ariel Sharon’s government, and is currently number 7 on the Meretz Knesset list.
Sasson’s report, generally, does not distinguish between types of illegal settlements. A makeshift shack built by renegade hilltop youth and a community housing hundreds of families whose authorization documents are missing this or that signature are treated equally – both must be demolished. Sasson insists to this day that the report she compiled was purely professional and not influenced one iota by her personal political views. No one believes that nonsense.
When Netanyahu was elected, the government decided to change course. A Justice Ministry team, led by Begin and Cabinet Secretary Zvi Hauser, decided that if up until then the state’s automatic answer to the High Court was that it would evacuate the outpost in question, from that point forward the answer would be that if the specific community had been built on state lands, efforts would be made to retroactively legalize the disputed areas. But even then, some people in the Justice Ministry felt that the state prosecutors’ hands trembled every time they issued a response to the court that involved legalization of disputed outposts.
However, it turns out that this was not enough. Some 9,000 housing units across Judea and Samaria have been built on land that qualifies as privately owned Palestinian land according to the current guidelines. Ostensibly, even the state’s new approach can’t legalize them.
For many on the right, this is where the big failure lies. For an entire year, the state avoided giving the court an answer, using the State Prosecution as a stalling tactic. During the High Court retrial of the Ulpana case, the state offered a vague and unclear argument, prompting the justices to believe that it was yet another attempt to buy time.
All the hard work done by the task force looking to devise an acceptable compromise solution and allow for legalization of outposts, in which Ya’alon took part this time, has now gone down the drain. In terms of the prosecution, this is malpractice, at best. At worst, this is the work of a political agenda.
One of the senior government officials who was involved in the process said that “after a plan of action had already been formulated, the State Prosecution was instructed to go to the High Court and inform the justices of the change in the state’s policy. They were to tell the court that the state was considering the option of retroactively legalizing housing built on private land and ask, accordingly, to postpone the evacuation.”
“The State Prosecution prepared their arguments. But no one, including ministers Ya’alon and Begin, and certainly not the prime minister, reviewed the [prosecution’s] arguments. And so, without any political supervision, the arguments were submitted to the High Court of Justice. Only afterward, when we saw the documents, did we understand why the court rejected our position outright.”
“But how does something like this happen? Who is responsible for the arguments the prosecution submits to the court? The justice minister? The attorney-general? That is precisely the problem. There is no oversight. There is only bureaucracy. The State Prosecution is an arm of the state, but the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing, or perhaps it doesn’t want to know,” the senior official said.
According to sources in the Prime Minister’s Office, things are about to change. Netanyahu plans to oversee all of the prosecution’s responses to the court. He has appointed a team, headed by himself, that in addition to Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman also includes representatives of the Likud’s rightist camp such as ministers Yuli Edelstein, Gilad Erdan, Gideon Sa’ar, Moshe Kahlon and Yisrael Katz. He is even considering asking Gila Gamliel to join.
Wallace Edward Brand Said:
Please explain to which result are you referring.
Wallace Edward Brand Said:
Please explain further(what purpose, what legislative intent?)
Did the LON declare that the trust must encourage Jews to settle west of the Jordan River? Is the UN charter obligated to the mandate and if so is not a subscription to this charter by members an obligation to observe the charter? Is there any implied right to the Jews to be able to settle west of the JOrdan and if so was it ever rescinded? (it appears to me that without this right and obligation the trust declarations have no meaning) Is the right of Jewish people to settle based upon Israeli sovereignty, or is it a separate right not dependent on Israel? Does a member of the “Jewish people” have a right to settle?
It seems to me that claiming rights cannot be solely determined by what one believes a court outcome might be. These outcomes often vary according to the disposition of Judge or Jury. I would never have thought that the Palestinians had a good case for most of their legal arguments and yet they appear to be winning their cases in the fora they have chosen. they have not allowed the possibility of losing to prevent them from their assertions. Perhaps the Jews could learn from their strategy. The assertion of claims does not neccessarily have to be won in a court in order to win the battle or war. However, never asserting claims will guarantee a loss of those claims as we are now witnessing. The world is confused as to the basis for Israels legitimacy which is not surprising as Israel itself makes no coherent claims itself. Israel is reactive and always in a defensive mode legally. In the world of reality action must be taken, arguments and assertions can be made to support those actions and these assertions give a basis for those who wish to support your agenda. Facts accomplished on the ground are easier to defend than arguments begging approval before action. Israel’s success is defined by unilateral actions in its own interests: these include declaring independence, 56 war, 67 preemption, 73 crossing the suez, entebbe, Osirak, munich revenge, first lebanon war, expelling PLO to Tunisia. the failures are characterized by the opposite lebanese withdrawals, gaza withdrawals, oslo,etc.
“Israel is bound by the Roadmap not to do and thing that would prejudice the final solution.”
That’s right. THE FINAL SOLUTION.
Are Jews actually SUPPOSED TO LIKE being tortured and killed?
I am starting to wonder whether I need “end of life counseling” to learn the correct attitude.
This is all BS, damage control, and obfuscation.
BB formed the coalition to start Disengagement II which ultimately involves expelling almost 700 (seven hundred) thousand Jews (including East Jerusalem) (700,000) and moving them inside the Green Line. As soon as the expulsion is complete, there will be a repeat of 1948 but, most likely, with the opposite result. Even without a war, the country will not survive this.
Does anyone know what BB and friends are actually counting on?
Were they promised an airlift to the US where they would get to watch Israel’s destruction on TV?
Were they stupid enough to believe that promise?
Wallace Edward Brand Said:
Israel can’t annex without running afoul of the world. Israel is bound by the Roadmap not to do and thing that would prejudice the final solution. Even though the Arabs violate the Roadmap all the time, Israel has not abrogated it thus remains bound.
The Roadmap is just a process as opposed to the Oslo Accords, nevertheless Israel has given commitmentsw to the US not to build other than infilling.
@ Wallace Edward Brand:
As I understand it, the court asked the prosecutors what they were asking for and they said “demolition order” because it was government policy to demolish houses build by Jews on Private Palestinian land. It wasn’t at all argued. The court simply said OK.
I first reported it here.
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/45901
What exactly did the prosecutors say? Is there a link to their argument or brief?
Annexation is the best way. That could stop the immigration of Arabs. The biggest difficulty of the San Remo agreement as the basis for sovereignty, in my view, is the failure to acknowledge that the Jews received only a beneficial interest in 1920 in trust that was intended to vest when they attained a majority of population in Palestine. And when in 1948 the trustee abandoned its trust obligations before this had occurred, these exclusive political rights devolved to the Jews. In any event they fairly attained that majority in 1950. The mandate language in isolation does not require this result. But evidence of this purpose results in a strong showing of “legislative intent”.@ bernard ross:
If Israel were to facilitate and encourage Jewish settlement west of jordan to fulfill the mandate, by a US style HOmestead act giving free land to Jews they could create a land rush which can quickly change the demographics of the west bank. Why would observing the law be illegal? They could do this without prejudicing negotiations on sovereignty or borders because the settlement of jews is not predicated on Israeli sovereignty or borders, it preceded Israeli soverignty.
I think the acceptance of 242 may have compromised sovereignty but if 242 contradicted the mandate then it was not really binding. as it was never accepted by the other party it is not a binding agreement. However, preceding Israeli sovereignty was the UN charter, LON mandate annd San Remo in which JEWS as a people were to be encouraged to settle west of the jordan river. I do not believe that right was dependent on Israeli sovereignty or title and I dont believe that right of the jewish people, not the state, was rescinded. therefore it is possible to imagine that JOrdan, as a member of the UN was obligated to settle Jews west of the Jordan river just as Israel was when it became a state. The only argument I have heard is that Israel is somehow the legal agent of the Jewish people and therefore it can do what it wants. However, that would be a violation of its agency by denying the very right it is legally bound to facilitate. I wonder why any individual cannot sue everyone involved for violating this right. It seems to me that even if Israel wishes to give up its sovereignty it can still legally facilitate, and is obligated to that task, the settlement of jews west of the JOrdan river. Also, Israels decision regarding its own interests should not be able to legally limit the rights of the Jewish people as a whole. I wonder if an injunction demanding the GOI cease violating the mandate can be brought in Israel’s courts or a writ of mandamus compelling GOI to encourage settlement. Either Jews, globally, still have this right or if not show where it has been rescinded, not to the state but to the jewish people.
@ bernard ross:
Ted: For your reference and critique!
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242
Interpreting its Meaning and Relevance for the State of Israel
By Jesse Rosenblit
Secure and Recognized Boundaries
Ted Belman Said:
Lawyers have always found counter arguments but is that a reason not to pursue a case, or assertion, or unilateral implementation based on an assertion. Must a case first be won in ones mind in order to take action? It is so strangely ghetto Jewish, to argue the case for the other side and rather than use that as a basis for counterarguments, abandon the claim instead. After all facts on the ground mean that the other party must assert and claim. Is it that Israel has no legal claims, as that is becoming the appearance?
I agree about a fair hearing, although it would shine a spotlight on jewish rights which appear known by none not even Jews. My point of view is that the assertion and claiming of these rights form a basis to act unilaterally on those claims. If anyone should assert those rights it should be the GOI even if it is in the form of instilling those rights through compulsory education in Israel and through hasbara to Jews in the diaspora. The concept of disputed territory asserted by Israel casts aspersion on Jewish claims and makes Israel and the Jews appear to lack credibility. After all, one who believes their position states and restates it. Even those who do not believe their position, the “palestinians”, educate their children to believe it. I believe there is a direct relationship between Israels lack of assertions, physical and diplomatic,and the global consensus that the Jews are the usurpers. This is the root course of the growing questioning of Israels legitimacy. what was thought to be sly and smart stalling has become an existential nightmare daily eroding Israels legitimacy in the eyes of the world. A complete shift is necessary to change perceptions in Israel as well as outside. How can Israel convince the world when it cannot convince itself. Every Israeli child and diaspora child should be intimately familiar with those narratives which advance Israels position. These legal political wranglings over settlements cannot in any case improve Israels position because Israel is becoming illegitimate by its own inaction. What are the legal arguments against the mandate to encourage Jews to settle west of the Jordan and what legal actions rescinded those rights? It is strange that no one even mentions it hardly, is it that the Jews are the usurpers? What is GOI’s legal position for not implementing the settlement rights?
There is no court in which we could get a fair hearing . Although Grief and Hertz are of that opinion and many more share the opinion. Lawyers could find many counter arguments. Best to simply allege our rights, but never put them to the test.
The Gov of Israel never asserts the rights of which you speak. They simply say the lands are disputed. Right after the ’67 War she took the position that we don’t have rights though this is disputed.
Dear Ted, all of these machinations appear futile to me. I understand that you are a lawyer therefore please answer a question that has me confused. Apparently I have missed something and perhaps you can inform me as to what it is. My understanding is that the UN charter is obligated to fulfill the League of nations Palestine mandate trust which called to encourage Jews to settle west of the Jordan river. I also understand that the same is true regarding the San Remo treaty in which the signatories were to be guarantors, including the US. My understanding is that the encouragement to settle jews in the charter has never been rescinded and that this right inures to global Jewry, predates the state of modern Israel and has nothing to do with who is the sovereign. If this is not so please explain why not. If it is so please explain why there is no settler movement, GOI, Israeli or Jewish NGO, international Jewish agency or NGO, legal Jewish organization that has or is pursuing these rights in the international legal arena or in the Israeli arena which would also appear to me to be legally bound to encourage the settlement. I am obviously wrong or some organization would be pursuing these rights.
This is indeed scandalous but, hopefully, better late than never. For years I couldn’t stand Talia Sasson even though she was/is the darling of the media (e.g. Ha’aretz), especially Israel’s TV News broadcasts. Her smug self-righteousness and very sly attacks on anyone, or anything, issuing from the political side she opposes, grated on my nerves. What a shame this ‘malpractice’ has only just come to the fore. Hopefully, apart from a thorough redressing of this trampling on the law by unscrupulous Leftwing fanatics, there will also be a backlash on Madam Sasson herself…like, for instance, debarring her from the legal profession and handing her her marching orders, i.e. firing her from her position as a ‘much respected’ lecturer at any Law school presently employing her.
If anything good comes out of this wretched and sordid affair, its putting an end to the Far Leftist and anti-Zionist agenda pursued in the State Prosecutor’s Office even if its too late to save the Ulpana neighborhood.
It may still save the rest of the revanants in Judea and Samaria.