The fate of Migron, an illegal outpost in the heart of the West Bank, is about to be decided. The implications of this decision are about far more than the future of a handful of settlers in a single outpost. This decision will be a litmus test of Israeli rule of law and, ultimately, of Israel's capacity to make peace with the Palestinians.
How can one outpost be so important?
Outposts are settlements that have been built in the West Bank without Israeli government authorization, in violation of Israeli law. Migron is the flagship of the settlers' illegal outpost enterprise -- one of the largest and most developed outposts and the shining symbol of the settlers' determination to overcome the Israeli government's longstanding policy against establishing new settlements.
Migron is an open-and-shut case of theft, the physical embodiment of the settlers' contempt for Israeli law. Migron is built entirely on land that Israel recognizes as privately-owned by Palestinians. Its establishment and expansion over the past decade epitomizes the corruption that is endemic in Israel's rule in the West Bank, since neither could have taken place without Israeli government officials aiding and abetting settlers' law-breaking.
And the persistence of Migron's existence -- despite its blatant illegality and despite repeated Israeli government promises to dismantle it imminently -- discloses the settlers' and the Israeli government's flagrant disregard for Israeli law and the Israeli Supreme Court.
Last August, after more than 5 years of Israeli government foot-dragging in various legal proceedings, that Court finally laid down a deadline for dismantling Migron: March 31, 2012. With that date fast approaching, the Netanyahu government and the Knesset are now scrambling to find a way circumvent Israeli law and the Court's decision. They are trying to find a "compromise" to appease settler law-breakers (not the first such effort), or to come up with a way to twist Israeli law to kosher the settlers' criminal acts. This response to the Court points to an increasingly alarming problem in Israel: sacrificing rule of law to further a far right-wing, anti-democratic ideology. It highlights a longstanding reality that few have wanted to admit: the Israeli political system has to a great degree been hijacked by the settlers and their supporters, in the service of an agenda that openly seeks to keep all or most of the West Bank in Israeli hands in perpetuity, at the cost of any chance for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Any future Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement will require the establishment of a viable, contiguous state of Palestine alongside Israel. Land swaps may allow most Israeli settlers to remain in their homes, but even the best agreement (from an Israeli perspective) will necessitate the evacuation of settlements located deep inside the West Bank. Migron is located deep inside the West Bank, in an area that cannot possibly remain under Israeli sovereignty in any future agreement.
If the government refuses to remove Migron, even with law and the rulings of the court requiring it to do so, it will send an unmistakable message: Israel today prefers settlements to peace. If Netanyahu claims he can't remove Migron, because taking on the settlers will bring down his government, it will send another message: Israel is today so deeply in thrall to the settlers that it is incapable of making peace, even if it wanted to.
Finally, should the Israeli government find a way to "kosher" the settlers' land theft in Migron, it will give a green light for the settlers to build illegally everywhere in the West Bank, knowing that no one, not even the Supreme Court, can or will stop them. In such a case, even if a future Israeli government is more serious about peace than the current one, settler actions on the ground will undoubtedly seek to block any agreement.
The case of Migron is thus not simply about the fate of one outpost. It is a test whose results will reveal whether Israel can continue to uphold even the pretense of being a nation of laws, in which the rule of law reigns supreme, or if it will instead openly embrace "rule by law" -- an ugly characteristic of a totalitarian state. Likewise, the fate of Migron will disclose whether settler influence has so deeply penetrated Israeli policy and governance that Israel is no longer capable of upholding even the pretense of a commitment to the two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Follow Lara Friedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Lara_APN
Jewish people left the ME 2000 years ago, leaving behind a handful of their number. To suggest that a "right to return" 2000 years later has any validity is laughable [see the report of the King-Crane Commission].
and the jews left Israel because the romans and the bizantains was much stronger... and it might surprise you buy I don't take King-Crane Commission as my moral compass.
and athe language point is simply not true- the jews today are by any mean the Successors of the 2000 and 3000 years ago jews. just like you are the Successor of... I don't know who.
Is that the ploy of Hasbara? Take up hardline pro-Israeli stances thereby forcing those who support justice for the Palestinians to take a hardline in opposition and scare away the moderates and left who want to see the right thing done for the Palestinians but feel that they have to defend Israel
To those people I say you are not being served well by the Hardliners that pretend to represent you. The longer that you allow their extreme views to be representative of yours the harder it will be to pull back.
To those on the left I will always have an intellectual argument with you on the legitimacy of the creation of Israel. Some of you might even agree with me but argue that the holocaust was reason enough to circumvent political norms. That's a discussion to have over a scotch at a bar somewhere.
To those on the left, you know that the only chance of a lasting peace is to return dignity to the Palestinians. Join this debate an oppose the extremist that seek to impose themselves as your representative.
and israel lets jews build in the west bank as that the heart of the land of Israel... the fact who rule there won't change that... if Israel take back the jews will still be there.
This has been blatantly obvious for years.
As per international law (The Hague Conventions, Article 42) and as ruled upon (several times) by the Israeli Supreme Court Israel’s sovereignty does NOT extend to "territories under occupation".
At the 4th Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference (April 2010) Israel *itself* insisted on the term "territories under occupation" be applied to any and all documentation generated by this conference.
Simply put Israel has no legal right to annex or build settlements in East Jerusalem, the Syrian Golan Heights, the West Bank or Gaza - this has been reiterated by the UN, EU, ICJ, etc.
Only when Israel stops it's illegal land theft and removed the illegal (and often quite violent) Israeli settlers will there be a chance for peace.
And, a reminder: In 1921, legally, "Palestine" - a territory, not a nationality of a state, of course - was partitioned. 77% of it was handed over to the Arabs who, subsequently, renamed their part Jordan, since "Palestine" is not an Arab name.
In 1922, legally, the remaining part of "Palestine", 23% of it, was assigned to the Jews who, subsequently renamed it Israel, since "Palestine" is not a Jewish name either.
Arab "Palestine", is the area located east of the Jordan River, while Jewish "Palestine" is located, legally, between the Jordan River and the Med. Sea. The Arabs were entitled to settle Arabs in their territory at will, as have the Jews been entitled to do.
The above legal acts were then enshrined in the United Nations Charter, Article 80, of 1945, as an irrevocable legal move by the UN.
It is high time we all stood by international law and promoted the settlement of the Arab Israeli conflict by applying it, as is.
International law grows and changes as new treaties come into being. Those former members of the league of nations who signed the U.N Charter were bound by that charter. Those rules and conventions of the League of Nations that were consistent with the U.N. Charter were carried over, the rules and conventions not consistent with the charter were superseded by it.
The San Remo conference could not have happened after the creation of the league of Nations.
You will of course point out that the British Mandate of Palestine continued under the United Nations and you will argue that since it continued then the rules and conventions creating it were not inconsistent with the U.N. Charter.
However you will have forgotten about the 1939 British White paper on Palestine that reversed British policy on Palestine and abandoned the creation of a Jewish state, in place of a democratically elected government with representation by both Jews and Arabs.
Under such policy the Mandate was consistent with the U.N. Charter.
Continued...........
That sort of elevates resolution 181 to a status that it does not deserve. Resolution 181 was passed by the General Assembly. In such circumstances the general assembly does not have such legally binding authority.
This can be seen in the actual wording of the resolution......
"The General Assembly….
Recommends to the United Kingdom,"
Requests that
(a) The Security Council take
The U.N. Cannot enforce policy that is against its charter, but it can enforce a policy that contradicts its charter if both parties agree to it.
That is why this vote was taken by the general assembly and not the security council and why the security council did not comply with the general assemblies request.
It should also be noted that several attempt by Arabs to have this resolution referred to the ICJ were ignored.
It turns out Hamas totally agrees with this philosophy. Who knew Isael had something in common with them!
A century from now you can safely bet there will be Palestinians all over Palestine. Where will Israel be?
"A century from now you can safely bet there will be PalestiniaÂns all over Palestine. Where will Israel be?"
3000 years ago was Israel....a century ago wasn't Palestine. what will be in 100 years from now? days will tell... but long long history say that the jews are gonna get back there and that no other nation has formed in that land...
from my point of view times works for the jews there. but who know.
Get used to it Lara. Its what they are indoctrinated with and the rest of it is fluff. Its not about Israel its about Jews
I knew that there was something about her that I liked. At least with left wing Zionist I can reach common ground on things like Education, Welfare and Social Justice. Concepts of a fair days work for a fair days pay are held in common.
We both defend the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively, On these issue Lara and I would have more in common, even though I am of a Palestinian parent and she is Jewish. Than you and Lara would have even though you are both Jewish.
Why should the craziness of racist radicals be "noted"? Should it be noted that some Palestinians believe that Abbas is controlled by a mind-reading Israeli satelite? Should it be noted that some Arabs believe that Jews make matso with the blood of non-Jews?
No, because those things are crazy and have no role in real-world discussions between rational adults.
Please explain, in detail, why 4 million people who have every entitlement to remain exactly where they are might suddenly choose to move to Jordan.
Please explain, in detail, why Jordan, a country already overpopulated in terms of that which its resources can provide for, might be willing to receive 4 million immigrants, allowing that it ceded any remaining interest it had in the West Bank to the PLO immediately prior to signing its peace treaty with Israel, and acknowledging that it recognises the right of Palestinians to self-determination.
Please explain, in detail, any entitlement to any territory outside of its 1948 border, and the boundaries of any such territory, that Israel has.
Thank you.
So this is a litmus test? And if Israel 'fails' this test then what? It proves that Israel is not interested in peace. And then what...?
I could easily fabricate a litmus test for the Palestinians. If Hamas doesn't stop rocket attacks on israeli civilians, it shows that they have no interest in peace. Well, they haven't. Now what?
In the end, the two sides will have to make some sort of peace, regardless of foolish decisions made by one side or the other.
Well they have actually.
The “Separation Barrier”, ruled illegal under International Law, is another clear statement that pre-meditated expansionism will continue & increase unilaterally; the two-state solution made a cynical game played by Israel showing contempt for world opinion, supported by a lap-dog US totally in thrall to the treasonous pro-Israel Lobby. US honor & world respect has been severely diminished & made a mockery by cowardice, hypocritical support & acceptance of Israel’s racist expansionist policy, so antithetical to our apparently lip-service only creed.
This “outpost” of stolen Palestinian land will probably be whitewashed & “legitimized” in some fashion as numerous others; swept under the rug of time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSlFR541Uoo
If you haven't viewed this Auschwitz survivor’s opinion I urge you to do so; strangely the right-wing pro-Israel crowd seems to ignore its truth.
This same absurd line again? Dismantling settlements will NOT bring peace. There was no peace before the settlements ever existed and there would be no peace in their absence.
So you "legitimize" land theft by claiming that they hate you anyway, so that makes it A-OK to steal from them?
Does that work in other cases too?
After all, everyone hates a petty thief, so that hatred "legitimizes" his acts of petty theft....
National Planning and Building Law (1965) Through various zoning laws freezes the growth of existing Arab villages while providing for the expansion Jewish settlements and creation of new ones. The law also re-classifies a large portion of established Arab villages as "unrecognized” and therefore nonexistent, allowing the state to cut off water and electricity as well as to simply appropriate that property.
• Appropriations are carried out under The Requisitions Law which allows a “competent authority” to requisition the land – called “land requisition order” – so that only he may “use and exploit the land” as he sees fit. This applies to “home requisition orders” as well, whereby another “competent authority” who can “order the occupier of a house to surrender the house to the control of a person specified in the order, for residential purposes or for any other use, as may be prescribed in the order. “