'Freeze-ending' settlement construction was legal, probe finds
Structures that were built in response to last week's terror attack in the West Bank were not included in the terms of the settlement construction moratorium.
By Chaim Levinson Tags: Israel settlementsLast week, following the deadly West Bank attack in which four Israelis - two of whom were residents the Beit Hagai - were killed, residents of the small settlement near Hebron declared an end to the Israeli moratorium on settlement building three weeks ahead of its expiration date and organized mass events in Kedumim and Beit Hagai.
However, a Haaretz probe revealed that the structures involved in these "freeze-ending" events were never included in the terms of the West Bank building moratorium.
The leaders of the Yesha Council of settlements convened in Beit Haggai the night of the murderous attack, announcing at a makeshift press conference that the settlement freeze was over and building projects would resume the following day.
Reverberations from the apparent breach of Israel's moratorium spread far and wide, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, attending the peace summit in Washington at the time, urging Israelis to honor the law.
The two main events took place in Adam, where a community center was being built, and Kedumim where residents resumed the construction of an unfinished kindergarten. Both events were attended by reporters from around the world, documenting what they were told was the end of the freeze.
 |
Construction in the West Bank settlement of Beit Hagai near Hebron, defying the settlement freeze, September 2, 2010. |
| Photo by: Reuters |
This was how a Yesha Council press release described the occasion: "At the end of the ceremony the order was given and residents, aided by local children, began forming the foundations of a new community center," saying it was to service "the more than thousand local children in various extra-curricular activities."
The Kedumim event, which took place in the settlement's Har Efraim neighborhood, was attended by 200 people, and saw work begin on a new kindergarten, as bulldozers dug the new foundations with residents later pouring in the concrete.
The head of the local council, Hananel Dorani, promised that the event did not represent a one-time symbolic measure, and that work teams would assemble the next day to continue construction.
However, as an investigation conducted by Haaretz showed, works in Adam, Kedumim, and Beit Hagai were all legal, for different reasons.
The Kedumin and Adam foundations, for instance, were both of public structures, which, unlike private structures, are not included in the terms of the settlement freeze.
In Beit Haggai, on the other hand, the foundations were laid prior to the freeze, making them, again, outside the terms of the moratorium.
In response to the Haaretz probe, the Yesha Council said: "After the attacks last week, we returned to build in different locations, some excluded from the freeze, such as a Kedumim, and some under the freeze order, such as Kiryat Arba and Beit Hagai. For us there is no difference. Do not worry, we promise that we will build in Yehuda and Shomron (the West Bank) in the coming year as well."
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Nothing pisses the lying pals off more than Israel's building her land by her people. BUILD!
haaretz does some reseach and then states teh construction does not apply to these structures. Well and good. Go guys build and build. And when they come to tear down what you have built. use haaretz as your defence. ignorant news paper masquearding as a legitimate news paper giving their opinion only and suibtitutiing it for law. A brilliant defence except it wont work. Aniother dumbed down piece of shody journalism if that is what they call it. I dare you to leave this one in. MOFO's
why must you find someone to blame
Given that it is illegal for an occupying power to settle the occupied land, and that Israel has never denied this fact, how can any structures built by settlers be legal?
The Question of the Applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention [PDF]-10:16 Regarding occupation or illegality accrued territory even after hostilities cessation . I couldn't possibly put even one chapter here,but some of you can go and read for your enlightement. P/S No wonder vhardman allways refers to San Remo ...
The Arabs have promoted concepts such as there is, or always was, a country called "Palestine," that there is a people called "Palestinians," that the Jews are "occupying" Arab lands and that the Jews living in their biblical heartland [Judea-Samaria and Gaza, a.k.a. the "West Bank"] are "obstacles to peace." These concepts, which are a complete invention by the Arab world and their apologists, have been swallowed hook, line and sinker by the liberal media and are now almost universally accepted as the Truth! What the Arabs have managed to achieve is to COMPLETELY falsify history! There are others who are to blame. For many years, it has been obvious to us that anti-Israel propaganda and Israel bashing around the world are little more than disguised anti-Semitism. No one on earth really cares about the so-called "Palestinians," least of all other Arabs. People pretend to care about the "Palestinians" because this helps them de-legitimize a real nation... the Nation of Israel. Read the San Remo from 1922 and then you will see the truth staring you in the face.No illegality in any of its edicts..
Biblical land, this is the problem. Religion should stay home. You are no different than the others extremists clowns.
That is a lie.
An occupying power cannot institute it's own civil law in "territories occupied".
As illigal at the time.It never belonged to them, was not an Arab/Muslim area and with a nomeclature of Judea and Samaria what gives you or anyone to dispute it by changing its true TITLE? Calling it WHAT DURING EGYPT'S OCCUPATION?? I am rather puzzled at the whole rigamarol ..
per se is not illegal. Rather the occupier is forbidden by intl law to do certain things including applying its civil law to territories occupied. I think you will find Jordan occupied the West Bank; Egypt occupied Gaza.
Egypt did not build illegal settlements. It did not illegally annex. It acted according to the UN Charter as a trustee.
Whether some including Haaretz likes it or not. SO I SAY IT IS A JEWISH COUNTRY AND BELONGS NOT TO ARAB/PALS >>>>SO BUILD BABY BUILD.>> AND SINCE TO THEVICTORS GO THE SPOILS FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL THAT'S THE WAY IT IS GOING TO BE..
Only in your twisted little world, Stephen. The victors give the land back according to international law. Get it? No? Go read a book stop watching Fox News and Rupert Murdoch propaganda
All settlements are illegal under international law. They're also all illegal under the law of Jordan, which (under international law) Israel is required to administer there. The fact that they may be legal under the law of a neighbouring State is quite irrelevant, unless and until that State annexes the West Bank - and makes everyone there Israeli citizens.
TO THE VICTORS GO THE SPOILS. IT IS JEWISH LAND IRRESPECTIVE THE SO-CALLED ILLEGALITY ENFORCED ONLY TO ISRAEL THE CODE IS JUST JUNK. Ipse dixit Israel /Jews From time immemorial. Ask Jesus ey?
Why do all you monkeys think that the victor gets to keep the land? Where are you from, Alabama? Mississippi? Redneck..
This issue is particularly revealing of elements in Netanyahu's personality. First, a basic principle. If you are discussing with another side sharing the land (or a pizza), it cannot be done while one party keeps devouring the land (or the pizza). Some form of a freeze is obviously a necessary condition for peace talks. If this thought did not occur to netanyahu on his own, he could have gotten a clue from the fact that the Roadmap included a freeze in the FIRST phase. This is basic. What decision did the Netanyahu government take? 1. The freeze applies to outside the current line of buildings, not to building WITHIN the currently built area. 2. The freeze will last for only 10 months. 3. The freeze will not be renewed. What do these elements indicate? The first element shows that Netanyahu has some sense of realism, and understands that a territorial exchange is acceptable to the Palestinians, so he takes advantage of it. The two other points are clearly unreal. Was it conceivable that the talks will be concluded in only 10 months? Would the Palestinians even conceive of talking peace with no freezing? I think Netanyahu has enough realism to realize that, but since he was dealing with his right wing partners Lieberman and most of Likud members, he decided to deceive them for now, present a nicer picture, and when the time comes he would try to wriggle out of it. All this shows Netanyahu as a creature of pressure; when pressured he acts, many times deceptively. Ultimately, he is not a courageous leader. He did not fight out the good fight then. Now he will pay some extra political cost for cheating his followers.
At least Netanyahu implemented a freeze in the first place, blithering fool. Why didn't the Palestinians take advantage of it?
It takes a little bit of intelligence to make distinctions, which SDHD does not demonstrate. If one demands "full freeze" and is given "partial freeze", does it mean that he received what he wanted just because the word "freeze" is used? Here is an example closer to home. If I say that you are "half-brained", better not consider it a compliment. Leave arguments to people with some smarts. About the likes of you and your insults the Talmud says: "It is an ill thing to knock against a deaf/dumb, an imbecile, or a minor. He that harms them is culpable, but if they harm him they are not culpable."
All the settlements are illegal under international laws. Israel has no right to decide otherwise.
Not to mention it's ILLEGALLY 'acquired' http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#JSchwebel
To read: The Question of the Applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention [PDF]-10:16 It will enlighten many here.It is of course far too long present it here.But you and the rest can go and access it on the Internet from a very relieble source. There is a fellow here under the moniker of vhardman that i have noticed who refers continuously to the San Remo Conference and its findings.To be open minded is preferable than being abstruse.