Updated: The Transparent Smokescreen
Mark B. KaplanMark is the director of the Office for Israeli Constitutional Law (OFICL),...
I just saw this news item describing the proposed agreement with the "to-be-evicted" Ulpana residents:
"Ulpana residents will evacuate the premises of their own volition in exchange for the construction of 300 housing units in Beit El and ‘legal protection’ from future petitions against outposts. (Maariv)"
What does "'legal protection’ from future petitions against outposts" mean?
How can the Government prevent Peace Now from pulling another one of these immoral moves?
How can the Government "protect" YESHA residents from future petitions?
The only "protection I know of that would do the trick is the ole' Al Capone method: Either you accept the bribe and play ball or we "eliminate the problem." I am assuming (and seriously hoping) that this is NOT the Government's intention.
The only realistic understanding of the above commitment is that we are being fed a healthy helping of what Norm Schwarzkopf once called "Bovine Scatterings."
What do you think?
19 June 2012 ל' סיון תשע"ב
3:15 AM Jerusalem Time
Here is an update to this posting:
"The committee is to ensure that, in future, no decisions to demolish neighborhoods or communities are made by the government, the Attorney General or the Ministry of Defense."
As I stated above, there is no "‘legal protection’ from future petitions against outposts."
Anyone can file a petition in the courts against any community, whether they have legal standing in the case or not. What brainless politician thought of that one? Oh, wait, Netanyahu strongly opposed changing the system to require legal standing in order to file a petition. If you are not part of the solution, you are causing the problem!
Let's say someone named Yaniv Flippenheimer of
Ahmed is brought to court to testify. The angry eyes of his fellow Arab brothers are all upon him, including those in the Palestinian Authority leadership. The PA courts have already issued a death sentence against Ahmed and his attorney. Ahmed of course is afraid to admit he sold land to Jews and now claims the contract is a forgery.
Now, the Israeli courts rule that since the land is not State owned land, we must assume the land is Arab owned, and the homes must be destroyed." I've always had a lot of respect for legal experts (no offense to one such expert named Dorit) who base legal rulings on crazy assumptions rather that demanding evidence.
How will the Government respond? "We cannot ignore a court order, and the homes will be destroyed. If we circumvent the court with legislation, we will be subject to cases against us at the International Criminal Court!"
In plain English, the condition that "the committee is to ensure that, in future, no decisions to demolish neighborhoods or communities are made by the government, the Attorney General or the Ministry of Defense" has no meaning whatsoever! It is a con game to make the Government look like the good cop, while the courts will play the role of bad cop.
The public is allowing themselves to be fooled by this immoral trick.
Am I the only one who sees this, or is the rest of the world really crazy?