The Rule of Law Triumphs

After 5 years of legal battles and public protests, the Israeli defense establishment has announced that it will move the security fence around Bil'in, Alfei Menashe and Tzufin closer to the green line. The decision is expected to return 2600 dunams of land that were expropriated from local Palestinians at a cost of 50 million Shekels.

The story of the construction of the security fence in this part of the country has sadly been fraught with deception and lies. The fence in the area was built in 2003 to prevent infiltrations and shooting attacks on Israeli motorists and residence. I know the area well. My family live in the Israeli village of Kochav Yair (just west of the Green line). I have personally experienced the fear (during the height of the intifada) of driving past the Palestinian town of Qalqilyah on the way to their home. I have also visited the settlement of Alfei Menashe (just to the east of the Green line) where friends of my family live. That some barrier was needed to protect these people from Palestinian violence cannot be denied. The problem was how much Palestinian land was expropriated to include these Israeli settlements and towns within the route of the fence.

On construction of the fence, Palestinians who had been adversely affected by the fences route petitioned the Supreme Court (a right afforded to all Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza) to have it moved. The Civil Administration’s Legal Counsel at the time ‘stated that the path of the fence was determined by security and topographical considerations’. But the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on handing down a decision in the case found: ‘The fence’s path has no security advantage. It is routed through an area that actually endangers troops patrolling it. On the basis of the security concepts presented to the court, the route gives cause for considerable surprise.’ Furthermore the court determined that the reason for the barriers route was based not on security but expected future settlement expansion in that region.

That the process has taken so long to move the fence to conform to the Supreme Court’s ruling is disgraceful. But the point is that it has now been done. Despite its behavior up to this point, Israel has today shown that the rule of law will ultimately triumph. This gives me tremendous hope for the future.

Last week I spent some time talking and listening to members of the SA ‘human rights’ delegation that just returned from the West Bank. A striking feature of their analysis is the permanence of Israel’s presence in the territories. They do not believe that left to its own devices Israel is willing or able to dismantle even structures that have been found illegal under Israeli law. Today Israel has proved them wrong. But this victory is only one small battle in a much larger war.

Israel, in addition to fighting Palestinian terrorism, is engaged in a desperate internal struggle against corruption. The hundreds of illegal outposts that have mushroomed in the West Bank, like the financial investigations of numerous cabinet members, are symptomatic of this. If Israel is to flourish as a Jewish and Democratic state we are going to need many more victories like this one.

Previously at IAS

• The strategic importance of Alfei Menashe
• Barrier – the seam of the Israeli Palestinian Conflict

Comments

[the pil]

Mike you mention that 'A striking feature of their analysis is the permanence of Israel’s presence in the territories. They do not believe that left to its own devices Israel is willing or able to dismantle even structures that have been found illegal under Israeli law.' This sentence just highlights the problem with this so called Human Rights Delegation that they do not understand the situation in the area adequately enough to make any moral judgement. They ignore the fact that in 2006 Israel made the painful decision to remove the settlements in Gaza. The actions of Israel proves that Israel is capable of making difficult decisions that remove outposts that until that point seemed permanent.

[the pil]

Mike, it would be interesting if you could write about the views of the delegates from your personal experience. 702 today devoted an entire segment of the Rhedi Dureko show to the human rights delegation. Forrest one of the participants of the show admitted that suicide bombings have caused distrust in Israel and made peace less likely but yet still argues that they must oppose Israel's actions in the west bank. It makes no sense, he admits that suicide bombings have been an obstacle to peace yet it is the actions of the IDF, that he opposes, that prevents suicide bombings.

[Gary]

For $%^& sake can no one grasp the fact that the Arabs launched a jihad against Israel in 2000, they have refused to lay down arms oir recognize Israel and insist on bloody jihad unitl Israel is destroyed.
How in hell can Israel fighting a defensive war be expected to ensure that there is no Palestinian suffering or incovenience?
When you start a war you can't expect the other side to give your comfort the priority.
No other country has ever behaved as ethically towards the civilian population of an enemy nation in wartime as Israel has. In a fight for her survival against a ruthless enemy that targets her women and children, and aims at the destruction of every Jew inside her borders, Israel always does all in her power to avoid harming Arab civilians.

Compare this to the Allied bombing of Dresden during the Second World War, or the horrific atomic destruction of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You have to be pretty stupid or a cynical lair not to see this.
The members of the so called "human rights delegation" lie with every breath.

[BLACKLISTED DICTATOR]

the pil,

Has Drew Forrest ever taken part in a radio discussion about human rights abuses in other countries? If, as a journalist, he is particularly concerned about human rights, then why is he only concerned about them re the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

One has to conclude that Forrest has another agenda. Perhaps he can o explain the reasons for this apparent bias in a cogent Mail and Guardian editorial? I look forward to reading it.

I have no problem with South African journalists investigating Israeli human rights abuses but i think that it stinks if they are unwilling to widen their investigation to include other countries.The latter should, of course, include Arab countries.

[Brett]

Well put Gary.

Mike, I think it is unfair to compare illegal settlement activity with political corruption. The former is an ideological phenomenon, people settling a land that, until a few years ago they were told is theirs to settle, the latter is greed. The only thing they have in common is that they are both illegal.

[soccer dad]

I'm skeptical of the the court's decision. While I didn't look this one over, I had, in the past, read about another decision. The court in that caes was too easily persuaded by the non-governmental bodies - often made up of former security professionls - that advocate for the Palestinians at the expense of the testimony of the current security professionals.

[Joel Pollak]

Forrest was the editor on duty while Howard Barrell was on vacation in 2002 when the M&G ran the disgraceful headline "Israeli forces take over Wits". It was one of the worst distortions in the history of South African coverage of the issue, with the accompanying article relying almost entirely on accounts by MRN/PSC activists. These accounts different entirely from the news stories by journalists on the scene earlier in the week. Forrest's agenda here is not a secret, and like many of the other members of the delegation his opinions were formed well in advance.

[Mike]

Soccer dad, you right. An organization called the Council for Peace and Security had a big hand in advocating for a change in the fence route. http://www.peace-security-council.org/about.us.asp. But from what I read in Haaretz it looks like the new Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi has on this occasion backed their position.

[Bigben]

This kind of propaganda is going to be quite rough to fight. These guys deliberately de-contextualise everything they say, dont make use of proper facts, see everything in binary, are historically illiterate and make use of some pretty emotive analogies for a group alledging to promote rational debate. The incorporation of anti-Zionist rhetoric is also worrying given this group supposedly recognises Israels right to exist. Whats even more disturbing is how they have turned a group of otherwise unobjectable people into a raging horde of left wing Jihadists. I hate to use the K-word but I think that this level of double standard is beginning to look like that applied only by a certain Mr Kasrils.

[soccerdad]

Mike,

It's possible that Gen. Ashkenazi has backed their position on occasion. I don't know. Like I said I hadn't really followed this specific case.

But back in 2004 or so there was a suit about a section of the fence yet to be built near Jerusalem. The court held with the petitioners even though it was pretty clear that the new path would not protect the road. I suspect I could find the relevant articles (I might have blogged it; IMRA might have details) if I had the time.

[Gary]

I repeat Israel is fighting a war of survival.
The courts should not even be involved.
During WW2 did the Allies seek a court interdict for every action against the Nazis?