Why does the IDF allow officers to live in illegal outposts?
How can an officer who breaks the law and ignores court orders serve as a model for his soldiers?
By Akiva Eldar Tags: Gaza Israel news IDFThe death of Maj. Eliraz Peretz, who was killed in an action in an operation in the Gaza Strip, brought the Givat Hayovel saga back into the spotlight.
As in the story of the heroism of his neighbor in the illegal outpost in the settlement of Eli, Roi Klein, who was killed in the Second Lebanon War while saving his troops, his settler friends and his patrons on the right have enlisted the Peretz family's tragedy in the fight to save his widow's home from demolition.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak was required to inform the High Court of Justice by May 1 of last year about when he intends to demolish the houses in the outpost (which Palestinians claim is built on private land). He has now announced he will ask the court to postpone the execution of the order.
Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, the officers' supreme commander, has also promised to lend a hand. Even the left-wing Peace Now movement has evinced the appropriate sensitivity and has agreed to cooperate.
Strangely, in all this no one has wondered how it is possible that the IDF, the body charged with imposing the law on the West Bank, never lifted a finger against its officers who settled in an illegal outpost in the first place.
Moreover, how can an officer in the career army who breaks the law and ignores a court order serve as a model for his soldiers? How should a private deal with an order to evacuate an illegal outpost from a colonel who has made his home in a similar community? And what can anyone expect of an officer who is squatting on property when his commander, who is himself a squatter, orders him to evacuate his own home?
After it emerged that dozens of career army officers are living in outposts, I sent these questions to the military spokesman. I wanted to know what the army's policy is with regard to officers who are living in outposts.
After a thorough clarification, according to the spokesman, with the Military Advocate General's Office, he sent the following response:
"In the unapproved outposts, for many years now thousands of citizens have been living, among them state employees including army people. As of today, to the best of our knowledge, there exists no general policy concerning state employees, including military people, living in the outposts."
Obviously the absence of a policy means a policy of tacit agreement. When they are in uniform, the officers are charged with enforcing the law. When they take off their uniforms, they are breaking the law.
The military prosecutor's acceptance of this phenomenon shows something about the special relations that have developed in recent years between the cat and the cream.
Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer, a specialist on military and constitutional law, was also surprised to hear the IDF's response. The absence of a policy with respect to officers living in illegal outposts, he said, is blatantly unreasonable and also encourages the phenomenon.
"The IDF is the sovereign and charged with enforcing the law in the territories," explained Kremnitzer, who in the past was a military judge. "Therefore, the army must have an unambiguous policy against breaking the law in those territories."
According to him, it is impossible to be a member of an organization responsible for the rule of law and to break the law without that having a negative effect on the organization's status. Kremnitzer says the IDF has a clear policy concerning members' conduct even when they are not in uniform.
The Civil Administration has responded that none of their people live in an outpost and they do not accept lawbreakers into their ranks.
Four years ago the police investigations department summoned a police officer who had built a house in the Mitzpeh Yair outpost in the southern Hebron Hills. After it was made clear to him that he had to decide on which side of the law he chose to stand, the officer called a moving company.
A police spokesman said that in the wake of this, a policy was established to the effect that a lawman cannot live in an illegal outpost.
The Shin Bet, which is also charged with enforcing the law and security in the territories, told Haaretz that it is not their intention to answer the question of their policy with regard to their people settling in outposts.
How much do they really love Zion?
Before Independence Day, the Emek Yezreel College commissioned a survey of the attitude of young Jewish Israelis (Hebrew-speakers aged 20 to 30) toward the national anthem, "Hatikvah."
A large majority (82 percent) reported they know how to recite the anthem in full. Another 17 percent said they know just part of it and about only 1 percent admitted they don't know the words to the national anthem at all.
A larger majority (85 percent) said the anthem represents them to large or very large extent.
Prominent among those who said the anthem does not represent them were people with low incomes (8 percent) and religious respondents (11 percent), as compared to 2 to 3 percent among people with average and high incomes and 1 percent among people who define themselves as traditional.
The vast majority of the respondents are interested in keeping the national anthem as it is; only 14 percent would prefer to replace it or modify it.
The initiator of the survey, Dr. Ruth Amir, head of the interdisciplinary studies department at the college, asked the Teleseker company to examine the percentage of Israelis who would be prepared to leave the country and move to the United States to live if they were able to obtain a residence visa quickly and easily.
The finding revealed a considerable gap between the "yearning Jewish soul" in the anthem and the desire for a green card. No less than 60 percent at all income levels responded in that they would take off if given the chance.
The title Amir chose for her study: "I love you, homeland, but I want to leave."
|
West Bank outpost. |
| Photo by: (Emil Salman) |
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
No titanium-clad guarantees. Ever. Why on G_d's Earth would Jews subjugate another people? Has nothing been learned?
...and has been bastardizing them ever since. It is Israel's failure to accept its obligations to the occupied populations outside the mandate that incites. Were you and I also among Israel's occupied, we too would rebel, would learn to hate Israelis, would teach our children to resist with all they could. Were you and I treated as equals in a country for all, we could hope to return kindness for kindness.
Why is it you only look at Israels obligations and ignore racist incitement,peace refusal,incitement to genocide,calls for obliteration of Israel by Islam. Why do you acknowledge in your posting right here the borders are not fixed,then demand israel move to its "borders"?
Peter has a point, the world audience should not ignore racist incitement, but to make an issue of it is an attempt to infuse irrelevancies into the efforts to bring Israelis and Palestinians to the table for peace negotiations. It is an attempt to vilify one side, so presumably the other side will look more worthy for international support. I am certain that Peter does not want the following to be part of the upcoming peace talks: "In June 2009 Hasidic Rabbi Manis Friedman called on Israelis to kill Palestinian men, women, children and cattle: destroy their holy sites." " Rabbi David Batsri called Arabs, a blight, a devil, a disaster...donkeys... we must ask ourselves why God didnt create them to walk on all fours. The answer is, they are needed to build and clean." Part II of UN resolution 181, under which Israel declared statehood, delineated in specific detail the borders of the land in which Israel would have sovereignty. They have not yet been changed legally.
"More pertinent, who says they are legal, except Israel?" No one that I know of.
Clearly, the policy is that if an outpost is unapproved, then Israelis can live there. So much for military discipline.
"And what can anyone expect of an officer who is squatting on property when his commander, who is himself a squatter, orders him to evacuate his own home?" The real order is: do as I do, not as I say.
Ashkenazi has agreed to lend a hand? And Peace Now has agreed to cooperate? Lend a hand to whom? Cooperate with what?
The High Court isues an order. Now, a year later, the DM wants them to postpone it? I guess Israel has no concept of contempt of court.
The settlements that are designated "illegal" were given this name by the Israeli government. And the reason was that no proper building permits were requested or obtained, the settlers simply built over a land they grabbed. Some of these "illegal settlements" may be legalized retroactively by issuing permits after the fact. These are settlements that are built over public land. But settlements that are built on private Arab land cannot be legalized since confiscation of private property of the native population is forbidden by the 4th Hague Convention (Art. 46, 1907) which is obligatory on all today as Customary International Law. This question was settled already by the Israel Supreme Court when it held that the West Bank is held under "belligerent occupation" and subject to the Hague rules. There is of course the Geneva Convention that forbids even "legal settlements" of Israeli citizens. The Israel Supreme Court held that it cannot enforce the Geneva Convention because there is no Israeli enabling legislation that would make Geneva the "law of the land", even though Israel is a signatory to the convention. For more details, read my book with title identical to the present post.
Ahlan ya Zeidan ! Fine ! your opinion on palestinian politics is your choice. I totally disagree but i respect your opinion. Now it's not Lisa, nor Israel that are going to dictate the palestinians what they should or should not do.
Hahaha. One supposes that it goes without saying that all those peace-loving conditions will be negotiated over the next hundred years starting from when the freeze on building in the West Bank and Jerusalem is over.
Dear Sam, I am Palestinian too and Lisa is right ? The present situation is only the Palestinian leadership's fault!! The PA led by Arafat were so corrupt, they couldn`t care one bit about the well being of the Palestinian people!! They ran so many Palestinians out of their homes in Bethlehem, Ramallah, Mainly Christians but also intellectual Muslums!!! They threatened their lives and killed thousands of Palestinians!! Several of my family members that didn`t go along with the PA leadership were murdered without trials!! Me and my family left our home for the US with no intention to return!!! You could blame Israel all you want but you clearly have no idea what your talking about. The entire blame goes on the Hamas and the PA, they never made our lives better!! If the PA was willing to make peace there could have been a PA state a long time ago!!!
You're a shame for those israelis who really believe in peace !
Is Pakistan an arab State ? Indonesia ? My origins are palestinian and guess what ? i'm not muslim !! what ignorance ! You have no problems expressing your islamophobia it seems ! Stop sticking to the usual shamefull propaganda please. That's education Lisa !! and you have a long way to go... You deny palestinians their right to have a state and you have the guts to tell them to go elsewhere to establish it ! For your information, Palestinians have been living on that land and will be living on that land. If you disagree with that, though luck !
The "most immoral army" - well, not "in the world" - but certainly in Western civilization. David
More pertinent, who says they are legal, except Israel?
Umm, Jeff, its the Israeli state. I suggest you read the Israel government 2005 Sassoon report on the issue - the report cited at least 150 illegal outposts, which either didn't have the proper permits or had no permits at all. It should be noted that while the Sassoon report only focused on "illegal outposts" which didn't have "official" Israeli govt permits, under international law ALL Israeli settlements and outposts are illegal. According to the 4th Geneva Convention - which Israel is a signatory toO - it is illegal for an occupier to transport any section of its population into the occupied territory and its illegal for an occupier to forcibly transfer any section of the occupied population out of the territory. According to international law Palestinians can't be "deported" from Israel because they aren't "occupiers" carrying out a belligerant occupation, unlike Israel who is (thus it's legal to remove illegal Israeli settler)
like just about everyone else in Israel, believes that all of the occupied lands should be part of Israel. Pretty obvious, isn't it?
Who actually owns the property? Were the proper building permits obtained? The obsolete Green Line was a temporary armistice line which only lasted for 19 years and not a border. If the Israelis in the West Bank can be deported then can the Arabs in Israel be deported as well?
I would not talk to Labhras about bigorty. Your comments place you in that camp. As for Ireland, dear me, I thought Israelis loved Ireland. Didnt the Lehi or Etzel translate into Hebrew all those IRA songs when they were fighting the brits in Palestine? I think you would enjoy Ireland. Please expand your horizons and pay it a visit.
a scared little child telling someone to grow up. thats a hoot. stay in ireland missing your nazi heros. you show yourself to be bigot everyday. now.... grow up!
Your right if I include several other Muslim countries like pakistan, indonesia etc the muslims have 2000 times more land than Israel!!!!!! Sam please help educate me!!! Which other Jewish country exists in the world that one can keep Shabbat, Sukkot, Shavuot, Rosh Hashana, Kashrut, ??? How many Arab and Muslim countries can you count?? How many of them have feedom of speech?
I suppose the thing I find it hardest to accept in Israel's, and your, attitue to the Pals, is an apparent belief that you can keep the Pals in the present state of semi-captivity for as long as you like. Don't misunderstand me. I can see that the path to today is a long and complex one in which the Arabs are far from totally innocent. I can also see that Pal freedom brings with it risks to Israel. However, freedom is one of the most fundamental human rights and Israel has no right to deny it to a people for over 40 years. Essentially today, Pals are hostages, held by Israel until it gets the peace deal it wants. That's not acceptable to me, and increasignly it's not acceptable to the world.
"According to him, it is impossible to be a member of an organization responsible for the rule of law and to break the law without that having a negative effect on the organization's status." Lieberman and other ministers live in illegal settlements. Why single out a few officers when the whole government, army and political establishment in Israel is corrupt?
See Arik, Brod doesn't think there is any need for negotiation. And he's right. Israel simply needs to re-invent itself. Out with the old Israel: start anew. Renounce the 1948 borders and declare sovereignty over all of Palestine, including its people and its refugees.
"Remember the Arabs have 800 times more land than Israel - 10 times moe per capita - Jews have only one country that has Jewish character. " You might need to educate yourself before writing such stupid comments. Good luck Lisa !!
And stop the blockade. And repatriate the illegal Israeli squatters. And accept that the annexations of the Golan and other territory acquired by armed conflict is illegitimate. And return to Israel's declared borders. If Zionists want to live in all of Palestine, dissolve the State of Israel, renounce the 1948 borders, and then declare sovereignty over all of Palestine and its people, including its refugees. Or perhaps you're concerned that the world would recognize that State. Perhaps you are right.
Thank You for your respectful comment! Start reading other Israeli talkbalks - like maariv, ynet and arutz 7, to get a feel about how Israelis feel about possible solutions. Israel is split over how to solve the crisis. Haaretz represents the extreme left - Akiva Eldar represents the 4% that voted Meretz. I am a Likud/Bibi supporter but I firmly support a 2 state solution. I want the PA arabs to have their own country -dimilitiarized with either PA passports or Jordanian passports. At the same time I firmly believe that Israelis have every right to reside in Hebron, Gush Etzion etc.. The Israelis residing in Yosh will never be left to live under PA jurisdiction. Remember the Arabs have 800 times more land than Israel - 10 times moe per capita - Jews have only one country that has Jewish character. I pray for peace every day but I firmly believe that peace can't happen unless the Arabs make concrete concessions.
" The resolution 242 indeed does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. It does not say Israel must withdraw from "all the" territories. Soo how much territory israel should give back? How do we resolve that if not by NEGOTIATIONS that Palestinians agreed upon. Did you get that Mr Labhras "the pure" Briton? I wish the palestinians to get with negotiations as much as they possible can. They have no other rights than what they can get through negotiations...despite Israel bashers. Israel bashers should work harded to change American veto. Wish you Good luck....
Jews can live anywhere in the Land of Israel.
You are absolutely right, Jews can live anywhere in the land of Israel. But they cannot live legally in occupied Palestinian territory. That is the land that UNSC 242 demanded Israeli armed forces withdraw from after the 1967 war. Israel's refusal to do so stood Israel in violation of the resolution and thus international law. Israeli settlements built on that occupied territory is a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention, and considered a war crime. If Israel continues to antagonize the US over it efforts to bring Israel and Palestinians to successful peace negotiations, the US may very well abandon its policy of protecting Israel with vetoes in the UNSC. If that should happen, Israel will be dragged before the International Criminal Court in the Hague to answer charges of war crimes so fast it will make your head swim.
The controversial clause is: "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." This is linked to the second unambiguous clause: "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and the recognition that "every State in the area" has the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. "The resolution does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. It does not say Israel must withdraw from "all the" territories This was quite deliberate. The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words. Otherwise israel would annex. On October 29, 1969, the British FS told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories" When asked to explain Lord Caradon said: "It would have been wrong to to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."
At issue is about 10% of the WB and land swaps including Pal connection from WB to Gaza via Israel Why is it you never ask what Pals / Arabs want? You may want to look at what their elected Govt says What they say about the refugees as their winning card All the WB Gaza and the areas of Jerusalem they had ethnic cleansed of Jews. In 1948 was there for the taking. Did they want it?
Lisa, with all due respect, you're one of the most hardline right-wingers on this site, and here you are again saying that the conflict is 100 per cent the Arabs' fault, Israel's never done anything wrong, the Arabs will just have to give in ine order to make peace, they get less the longer they wait, there must be a synagogue on the temple mount etc. etc. Why do you call yourself a peace lover? I'm sure even Genghis Khan liked a bit of peace and quiet once in a while, but you'd hardly call him a peace lover.
ARTICLE I AIM OF THE NEGOTIATIONS. 1993 palestinians and israel The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council (the "Council"), for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period.... leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. It is understood that the interim arrangements are an integral part of the whole peace process and that the negotiations on the permanent status will lead to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Spirit of 242 Israel should withdraw from "territories" and not "the territories". This is exactly what is going to happen. A Palestinian state will be created in part of the West bank and the whole of Gaza. Israel will have recognized and DEFENSIBLE BORRDERS.
Just compare what you get dollar for dollar in the West Bank vs Tel Aviv/Jerusalem and you'll begin to understand why people chose to live in outposts and other settlements. Most people living in these locations chose to live there because it's cheap, as the government intended it to be.
is occupied. Unless the whole of the mandate is back up for negotiation. You sure you want to go down that road.
"The ultimate goal of 242, expressed in paragraph 3, is the achievement of a "peaceful and accepted settlement." between existing 'states'. "It means a negotiated agreement.." Says NOTHING about negotiations. It calls for ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF " This is also the implication of Resolution 338. According to Arthur Goldberg, the American ambassador who led the delegation to the UN in 1967 that is the spirit of the resolution." 338 is also between existing states. "Palestinians since Oslo accepted to deal with Israel according to 242 parameters" As a starting point.. 'parameters' by the actual word of the resolution or by something else? Because USNC res 242 /338 are BOTH about existing states, existing boundaries, existing sovereignty. What is to be negotiated is stated in UNSC Res 338 // negotiations shall start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.// Neither calls for negotiating boundaries.
As long as people keep saying the problem is settlements and occupation there will never be a solution! The problem is not settlements and occupation. The problem is that the Arabs are not committed to peace - plain and simple the Arabs are not committed to peace. If the Arabs were committed to peace they would be willing to compromise for peace!! The Arabs were never required to make concrete concessions!! The fact is that if the Arabs saw peace as a value they would be preaching love, tolerance and respect in mosques and schools. They wouldn't be calling streets after suicide bombers!! Israel is always required to make concrete concessions: In 1956 we gave bk the Sinai. In 1982 we gave bk the sinai again. In Oslo we gave land to the PA. In 2005 we gave up Gush Katif. By Israel making these unbelievable gestures we showed how valuable peace is to Israel. The Arabs keep claiming that they are the victims, so they don't have to make concessions!! The road to peace is to require that the Arabs accept that they are at fault in this conflict and that they must make concessions!! The Arabs are 100% at fault for the Palestinian -Israeli conflict. The Arabs said no to peace in 1947 with the partition plan. The Arabs said NO NO NO in 1967 at Khartom! The Arabs said no in 2000 in Camp David! The solution will come when we stop feeling that Israel has to give up everything. Israel must demand that the PA makes serious concessions 1) Accepting that Israel is not going bk to 67 borders 2) Israel will keep the IDF on the Jordan border 3) Jews can establish a house of worship on the Temple mount and share rights just like in Maarat Hamachpelah
Your post is too long to respond to in one part. To summarize: The Arab League (22 nations including Palestine ) proffered a comprehensive peace offer to Israel in 2002 and 2007 endorsed by US, and EU. Full diplomatic recognition in return for Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders. Israel never responded. Arab compromise for peace: Israel has occupied their land for almost 43 years. Historically, the occupied, oppressed population does not make concessions to end their oppression. Preaching love for their occupier? In June 2009 Hasidic Rabbi Manis Friedman called on Israelis," to kill Palestinian men, women, children and cattle: destroy their holy sites." Pals calling streets after terrorists: The Israelis travel daily on streets named after Menachim Begin (Irgun), Rabbi Meir Kahane street, and Stern street, named after Avraham Stern, the founder of the Stern gang. Arabs may have difficulty admitting fault: they have been occupied for 43 years. Their fault? Out of space. But you get the drift.
600,000 Israelis live beyond the green line. There will never be peace until the left and the arabs accept that Israel is never going back to the 67 borders. Israel is not going to demolish: Ramot, gilo, maale adumim, ariel, ofra, efrat, eile, kdumim, kiryat arba etc..... These Jews will never become residents of a PA country so the only possible solution is for the arabs to accept part of the WB. The longer they wait the less they will get. They can do all the intifadas they want all the intifada led to was thet more Israelis opposed a PA state 10 miles from netania
It's obvious. The IDF wants them there. Many of their officer corp comes from these colonies. Since their is no clear policy that can be implemented by Central Command, what are we to think? The government and the IDF want them there. No one seems to get the core issue here. Zionism demands a demographic superiority. Without it, Israel beliees it will never have the security it needs. It has been and is in the process of implementing this demographic program by various ruses, but lebensraum is essential to it and the IDF is at the vanguard of this policy of land expansionism and enhancing the Jewish population while carrying out a policy of diminishing the Arab population. Therefore, IDF needs to be a strong presence in the colonies for strategic and ideological reasons demanded by zionism.
is not acquisition by force.
Obviously you refuse to recognize it, but it doesn't mean it isn't there. Put simply, in contrast to territories gained in 1948 (some were lost too) all territories gained in the 1967 war are not, under international law, part of the modern State of Israel. If you and your friends (we've heard this argument before) like to hallucinate about these things, that's your private problem.
Israel declared its borders in 1948, and has violated them ever since. If Zionists want the legal right to live anywhere in Palestine, dissolve the State of Israel, renounce the 1948 borders, and then declare sovereignty over all of Palestine and its people, including its refugees.
To hell with the law.
Nothing about negotiations in there. Just something about the withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied. And an end to belligerence and force or threats of force. And a just settlement of the refugee problem created as a result of that occupation and belligerence. So whatever works, imposed or negotiated, would fit the bill.
whatever the borders now or in the future. ditto for peace.
Ruled by 18-year olds. Therein lies the whole issue. Without that, there would now be many more Jews in the west bank, living and trading in peace with Arabs.
by the Israeli government. All of Israel was built first before all of the final papers were signed by all of the government agencies. Almost all of these outposts can have their papers signed tomorrow if decided. This is how it has been done in Israel since 1948. No town has been declared illegal before all of the papers are signed untill the enemies of Israel jumped on this technicality. It just shows that laws can be broken if the left deems so but stands on procedure when the right does it.
The ultimate goal of 242, expressed in paragraph 3, is the achievement of a "peaceful and accepted settlement." What does it mean??? It means a negotiated agreement based on the resolution's principles rather than one imposed upon the parties. This is also the implication of Resolution 338. According to Arthur Goldberg, the American ambassador who led the delegation to the UN in 1967 that is the spirit of the resolution. Palestinians since Oslo accepted to deal with Israel according to 242 parameters. Sorry people, but there is no other game in town. Condemnation from the SC means nothing. Comndenation without sanctions means less. The future of a Palestinian state is pending in how they will play their cards in negotiations.
If it is established the land is under private ownership they should pay fair value rent for the time they have been squatting. But now they should vacate the property.
Now Israel can complete the displacement of the indigenous people twice as fast. Bibi must be rubbing his hands with delight.
as ruled by the Israeli High Court of Justice". Who are you to argue. As to 242 and withdraw from the or it or them or those or these---it is not the point. Here is what Lord Caradond said about the inadmissibility of territories taken through war. ""Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line, I wasn?t prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ?inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war? and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war."Lord Caradon So please show us where in 242 it says either party can keep gobbling the very pie under discussion. I thought brits were smarter than than that.But you are not a brit are you. Grow up Arik.
" Jerusalem is NOT the unified capitol of Israel, since part of it is ILLEGALY occupied" No. Because it simply ISN'T Israeli. The occupation left to Israel under res 242. The UN doesn't care who occupies as long as they abide by the laws of occupation. "If Israel does not follow international law, its membership in UN should be frozen, sanctions should be put on it etc." Indeed.
Israeli Law in force since independence, absolutely forbids residents and citizens to leave Israel for any country designated by law as an enemy state or hostile entity. As the "territories occupied" were never withdrawn from, they are still "occupied" "territories". //UNSC Res Res 1860 Recalling all of its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003) and 1850 (2008), Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state// Israel occupies East Jerusalem / WB / Gaza. They are all inseparable parts of the non-state entity of Palestine. Israel declared the Palestinians as an hostile entity.
The answer is in two words - paradoxes and anomalies- and ours is a nation of both. We have a border called the green line that no one internationally recognises and which we stretch and bend and ignore at whim. We have an army that reflects the political realities of the day - many who serve in the W. Bank are the sons of settlers and would refuse an order to evacuate settlements. Others carry out their policing tasks and get beaten up by settlers. Others still, find no problem in inhabiting illegal outposts they are supposed to police. And as long as there is a Defence Minister who leads the way in blurring all of this for some political advantage that is opaque to say the least, the rest follows.
they seem to be doing a good job with illegal homes of beduin soldiers
Excuse me, but international law is quite clear on occupation. It is a minority of experts that question the existence of occupation, most of them from Israel. Who are you to disregard the only framework of agreement that the world has agreed on (including Israel) as to war, violent conflict and occupation?
According to international law all settlements are illegal. You don't care about that obviously. But according to Israeli law, all the outposts are illegal. And those are the ones this article refers to. It is sad to again see that international law are considered by so many in this country to be something that should be ignored if not changed. Even though the Geneva Conventions were agreed on as to avoid atrocities compared to what took place during WW2. However Zev, do you also disregard Israeli law?
How do we know that? The fact is that negotiations between palestinians and Israel are about THESE DISPUTED TERRITORIES. Negotitiations are not about...withdrawal from "ALL" terriories acquired after the 67 war. Withdrawal from a seemingly illegal occupied land from OTHER COUNTRY do not need negotiations. In that case sanctions should be effective against violators of the law. BUT IN THE CASE OF THE WEST BANK THERE ARE NO SANCTIONS AGAISNT ANY VIOLATOR SO FAR. FURTHERMORE: It seems that some people have STILL not percieved that negotiations between Pals and Israelites are about HOW MUCH TERRITORY ISRAEL WILL ABANDON AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS...NAMELY WHAT PRICE. INDEED ISRAEL HAS NOT ANNEXED ANY LAND FROM ANY OTHER COUNTRY. THE NON STATE ENTITY IS NO COUNTRY. It has no rights. We might hope that with negotiations the Palestinians will get the meximum they can get from the disputed land. They will get nothing for free.
That's the big point. Israel can fart around pretending that some of the settlements are legal and some aren't, but basically everyone on both sides of the argument knows it's rubbish. Ordinary planning regulations just do not apply in the West Bank, as endless Israeli governments have made clear by refusing to clear illegal settlements. So the so-called illegal outposts aren't really any more illegal than the so-called legal settlements. Too many Israelis regard them as all legal. The rest of the world regards them as all illegal.
IDF, Civil Administration, Police, Shin Bet make four separate law enforcement authorities and that's the part of the iceberg we see. Is the legal "out" for the IDF the question of whether career officers living in illegal outposts are serving members of the Civil Administration? To whose advantage is it to have so many ladles in the pot? - No need to answer, but hey, here's a hint: it's certainly not the Palestinian civilians whose daily lives they micro-manage between them.
because it is not viewed too problematic I guess. After all why bother with building permits etc in the Wild Wild Westbank?
There is something terribly confusing in Israel in the topic of settlement, legality and illegality. 1) According to the International law (on which is based the existance itself of Israel), Jerusalem is NOT the unified capitol of Israel, since part of it is ILLEGALY occupied 2) West Bank (and Gaza Strip) is still under occupation, and according to all international rules, the occupier CANNOT build nor transfer its population to it 3) Israel has no jurisdiction on East Jerusalem, nor can it decide which arabic buildings are legal or illegal. If Israel does not follow international law, its membership in UN should be frozen, sanctions should be put on it, EU should stop any business and partnership. Like Iran, Iraq during Saddam, like Cuba. Any reply? If my brother steals, he is a thief, no matter what.
According to ISRAEL'S laws? If outposts are illegal, anyone living in it is breaking the law; soldier or not! So the answer to your question is NOT that no laws are being broken. The answer is that Israel refuses to enforce even it's OWN laws if doing so provides justice for a Palestinian at the expense of a Jew; even when the latter's actions, and/or activities, are illegal. How many years has it been since the ISRAELI supreme court ordered this outpost dismantled? And how many others just like it? Please don't assume to talk about international law when you've obviously skipped right over Israel's inability to recognize its OWN laws.
There are so many ridiculous rules in Israel and so much beaurocracy its almost impossible to build here. The average person cant afford to pay 500000 dollars for an apartment in Jerusalem or a million dollars to live in tel aviv so they go to the west bank. It is affordable housing,quite cheap. The illegal outposts are the cheapest of all. So if you want cheap houses, buy houses in the west bank or illegal outposts and you will be able to actually have a house not a 30 meter studio. Furthermore it not far from some major cities. As far as laws and illegal outposts, If the defense minister signed a peice of paper some of the illegal outposts would be legal. The law in Israel changes every day depending on politics.
... who have put-up-their-tents just there... ... it's untenable to remove an IDF officers home while he's on active duty... ... in fact there are cases where "legitimacy" has been conferred on illegal outposts, precisely becasue of its IDF officers...
...but the West Bank and Gaza are still part of Israel. Israel reserves the right to take back land anytime for any reason. Those settlements are not actual violations of any treaty. It's called reality and it has a way of sneaking up on you and biting you in the behind. As for the IDF troops living in settlements, they of all people should be allowed to live anywhere they want. You're fighting a losing battle, my friend.
And this is an example of why the world sees Israel as another two bit mediocre state.
Under International Law, there is no Israeli occupation in the WB. The suggestion that there is is simply world consensus. world consensus does not negate International Law.
The law matters in "Real" democracies.Israel is more of a banana republic style,It actually blends very well with its neighbours
Maybe because they are not breaking any law? Before all you lefties start quoting international law please qoute all interpretations including those that claim that international law does not stop Jews from living in Judea and Samaria.(Howard Grief, Edelberg,Marvin Belsky,Sershowitz et. al.)
I finally find myself totally in agreement with HaAretz. Ideology has its place in Israel. It has no place in the IDF. Settlement in Judea and Samaria is not merely subsidized housing, clean air and spacious homes. It is also an overt expression of ideology. Settlement in the recognized areas is definitely acceptable as ideological expression within the Israel debate. However, settlement in unrecognized areas... especially in settlements that are illegal... is far more than mere ideological expression. It is a contravention of Israeli law and an officer in the IDF should not be a party to it. On the other hand, I understand and accept the emotional issue. Our ability to think with our hearts is perhaps our greatest strength - and our greatest weakness.
Obviously the absence of a policy means a policy of tacit agreement. that's an 'interesting' aproach. I think the IDF should follow the Civil Administration's footsteps. You cannot brutely enforce the law on one part of the population and 'tacitly'aprove lawbreakers in your own ranks.
More than a few Americans think this is the opening line of the US National Anthem. Given how some sing it, that is understandable, especially as it is used to open every sporting event.
territories IS everyone's business. "none of your god damn business or any leftist in haaretz get out of israel" Very convincing argument. Erudite, full of facts, citations, quotes, references....
"it seems that since there is no national consensus in Israel as to what is or isn`t "illegal" (territory-wise)" Israeli consensus does not negate International Law or the GC's.
In fact the IDF is without a doubt less moral than any of the true western armed forces. Certainly that has been proven time and time again, particularly as of late.
The ambivalence of the IDF regarding its duties in the occupied territories is well known. Coming down hard on peaceful pro-Palestinian demonstrators, but ignoring settlers who uproot olive groves... This is just part of the picture.
none of your god damn business or any leftist in haaretz get out of israel
After all, the IDF **is** the law in the occupied territories (as is true of all armies of occupation) and it most definitely **does** deem "outposts" to be contrary to its own military orders. Soldiers who live in those same outposts are therefore violating a military order, and that would be utterly unacceptable in any real army. Yet the IDF does not care. Ergo, the IDF is not so much "a real army" as it is "a rabble". I applaud the responses of both the Civil Authority and the Police, though I'll point out that both of them operate in the WB under the ultimate authority of the IDF. Having said that, I'll note that Shin Bet refuses to give an answer; which raises the obvious question of how many of its spooks are also "outpost settlers". Quite a few, I'd suggest...
wow 60% of them would leave, so whats holding them back? Oh yeah the zionist controlled govt of america. the only way to keep all the land is to keep the people on it. Isn't that what happened to the WWII victims they were forced to move to isrl. or are we not allowed? i bet all those jews living in the US are glad they live there and not in isrl. they got lucky they never got forced to move.
...lawyer (in that lawyers are trained never to ask a question (in court) that they don't already know the answer to). Having said that--and from over here--it seems that since there is no national consensus in Israel as to what is or isn't "illegal" (territory-wise), an arguable case can be made that you can't charge a person for living "illegally" (territory-wise), when the powers that (may or may not) be have yet to establish just where (if anywhere) the "illegal" chunks actually are. (On the other hand, if the "Powers" should attempt to do that, some group of folks is sure to ride them out of town on a splinter-studded rail.)