 |
| The Ulpana Neighbourhood |
In this country everything is viewed in fine
resolution. We love to zoom in with our “Google Earth” eyes to find something
to argue about. The Ulpana neighbourhood is a case in point. In full zoom the
crux of the problem is the legality of five houses in the Ulpana neighbourhood
of Beit El, a settlement situated just north of Jerusalem
in a district universally known as the West Bank.
Anywhere else in the world property disputes are rarely of interest to anyone
other than the parties concerned. However, here there is a lot more at stake.
The implementation of a court ruling regarding the five Ulpana buildings will
probably set a precedent for similar cases. Currently about 1200 families live at
Beit El. This week the Ulpana neighbourhood controversy threatened to topple
the government. Admittedly, so far Prime Minister Netanyahu has managed the
crisis with skill and aplomb. However, the problem is far from being resolved,
or as the Americans say "It ain't over till the fat lady sings." In both Israel
and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria)
we like to be on “terra firma.” Regarding Beit El and its environs we are told
that here the patriarch Jacob slept and dreamt of angels descending and
ascending a ladder. He called the place Beit El. The modern settlement started in 1977 when a
number of Jewish families moved into an IDF base built at the site. Twenty
years later Beit El was awarded local council status and two years later construction
work was started on an extension to the settlement , known as the Ulpana
neighbourhood. A stop-work order was issued by an Israeli court as early as
September of that year, but construction has continued, notwithstanding a
demolition order issued by the Supreme Court of Israel in 2008 after an appeal was lodged by Palestinians
from the village of Dura al-Qar.
At this
juncture I want to add a few words about the Supreme Court. The area of its
jurisdiction is all of Israel
and the Israeli occupied territories. A ruling of the Supreme Court is binding upon every
court, other than the Supreme Court itself.. The Supreme Court can sit as an appellate court and a court of first instance. The Court has ruled on numerous issues relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the rights of Arab citizens of Israel, and on discrimination between Jewish groups in Israel. It is
unique in that its rulings can intervene in IDF military operations. Israel's Supreme Court is
internationally known as the bulwark of civil and human rights in the country's
democracy. On numerous occasions it has used its muscle to scale back the
initiatives of our legislature, the Knesset and its executive branches. But it has taken decades
for the court to gather this power and stature. The
main reason for this gradual build-up of stature is the absence of a
constitution. In the country's seminal legal document, the May 1948 Declaration
of Independence, Israel's founders called for the
drafting of a constitution within six months. But in the ensuing chaos of the
country's struggle to fend off invading Arab armies, the deadline passed. Later, lawmakers bitterly disputed the nature
of a potential constitution. Secular representatives wanted the document to
reflect the legal values of Western liberal democracies, while religious
lawmakers insisted that the Torah and halakhic (Jewish legal) tradition
should serve as the basis for the legal system of the Jewish state. Failing to
reach a consensus, the lawmakers decided the constitution would be constructed
gradually, in a piecemeal fashion. They did this through establishing a special
type of legislation known as "Basic Laws." This type of legislation
takes precedence over everyday laws, and these laws can only be changed by a
special majority. It was envisioned that the Basic Laws would eventually
acquire the force of a constitution, but for the time being, they would have a
quasi-constitutional force: stronger than regular laws but weaker than a
formalised constitution.
Back to Jacob
dreaming on the hilltop, his head snugly resting on a “stone.” According
to a popular legend that stone rolled a considerable distance. It’s reputed to
be the same Stone of Scone that was tucked under the royal throne of England for
almost 700 years. Another legend claims
the prophet Jeremiah brought the stone to Ireland. The Bible doesn’t say
where or how Jeremiah died, it simply recalls him moving to Egypt. Perhaps
he fancied a glass of Guinness. Much later during the Viking raids on Ireland, the legend recounts, Irish priests
moved it to safety in Scotland.
In 1296 Edward I of England invaded
Scotland absconded with the
Stone of Scone and brought it to Westminster.
Yet another legend claims the Abbot of Scone switched stones and gave Edward a
fake lump of Scottish rock. More recently geologists examined the stone under
the chair in Westminster and pronounced that it
was red standstone quarried somewhere near Scone.
In 1996 the worthless replica was returned to the Scots
who had been harbouring a grudge for 700 years. They are still peeved, why I
don’t know.
If you believe the legend they are still holding the
original Kosher stone Jeremiah brought
to Ireland
and the cheap Scottish replica.
Another legend-like
story concerns a contemporary of King Edward, namely Robert Bruce, king of Scotland, who
was both ally and foe of Edward. Before he died Bruce asked his friend James
Douglas to bury his heart in the Holy Land. Douglas
was killed in battle in Spain
and the heart was brought back to Scotland. It seems that’s exactly
what happened.
Legend aside the Ulpana neighbourhood is still with us.
The last Supreme Court
ruling ordered the state to demolish the five
Ulpana buildings by the 1st of July. At present Netanyahu wants move the buildings
to another site. Ulpana’s five contested buildings — home to some 30 families,
and built on what the state accepts is privately owned Palestinian land — would
be transplanted several hundred metres away. However, in the event that the
houses would have to be demolished rather than transplanted, 10 more would be
built in Judea and Samaria,
pending the approval of Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein
The prime minister proposes sawing them at the base and
rail-tracking them to the new site. Some time ago the old Sharona community
built by the German Templar settlers in the late nineteenth century was moved
fifty metres in the heart of Tel Aviv. The prime minister’s proposal is far
more complicated and costly. It’s a lose-lose situation. The prime minister is
loath to defy the court order, he doesn’t want to anger the settlers and he
hopes the US
will understand his predicament. He has
ruled out demolishing the buildings. He briefly considered walling them up but
appears to have rejected that idea. So now he has settled for sledging them to
another place. To appease the angry settlers who tried through their Knesset
representatives to introduce retroactive legislation on Wednesday
to legalise the building on the Ulpana land and offer compensation to the
Palestinian landowners. By a majority vote the Knesset rejected the proposal. If it had approved the bill the Supreme Court would have invalidated it at
a later date.
By way of compensation Netanyahu said he would
construct thirty new buildings in Beit El for the five buildings that would
have to be vacated. Later he increased the number to 850 housing units to be
erected in different settlements in Judea and Samaria. As expected the State Department
responded immediately criticising the proposal.
While all this
has been going on an old idea has been given a fresh airing by a small group led by Ami Ayalon, a
former member of the Knesset for the Labour Party. He was previously head of the Shin Bet
(Shabak or GSS), Israel's
secret service, and commander-in-chief of the Navy.
Ayalon’s proposal calls for a unilateral
withdrawal from the West Bank in places with
no Jewish settlements and then negotiating with the Palestinians regarding the final
status borders.
Earlier
this week Defence Minister Ehud Barak said the West Bank settlements of Ofra
and Beit El would be annexed to Israel
under a final-status agreement, a remark that raised the ire of the
Palestinians.
This marks
a change in Barak's position from the 2000 Camp David
talks, when he was prime minister. Back then, he offered the Palestinians most
of the West Bank and parts of East Jerusalem.
In the past
both Presidents Clinton and George W.Bush recognised “facts on the ground.” namely the
need to include the large settlement blocs in Israel and “swap” land to
compensate the Palestinians. So far no progress has been made to “flesh out” this idea. Ayalon hopes his
withdrawal proposal will provide the catalyst to set the process in motion.
Have a good weekend
Beni 7th
of June, 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment