Daily Israel Report
Show More

OpEds


Migron’s Dilemma: To Protest or not to Protest

Residents of Migron face expulsion, are being pressured by the government to leave peacefully and by nearby communities to protest.
By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
First Publish: 8/26/2012, 7:36 AM

Resident facing expulsion at Migron
Resident facing expulsion at Migron
Reuters

Residents of Migron face expulsion and are being pressured by the government to leave peacefully and by neighboring communities to protest.

Migron has been the victim of the same type of government policies that uprooted Gush Katif Jews from their homes after years of government support and promises they would never be forced out of their homes. Promises from the Netanyahu administration to back Migron fell, one by one, even when investors bought a number of land parcels from alleged Palestinian Authority owners.

The High Court did not deny the recent purchases were legal but ruled the change in property ownership of part of Migron as not sufficient proof to change its original decision to order them to be removed and their houses to be destroyed.

The 17 families who live on land parcels are appealing again to the High Court for a change in heart.

Migron is the largest community to come under the guillotine since Gush Katif, and the IDF, though the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), is sending representatives to Migron Sunday to offer to help the residents pack up and leave peacefully, which they say they will not do.

Residents of nearby and much smaller Givat Assaf, facing the same fate, have urged their Migron neighbors to resists expulsion. They argued that the government’s failure to carry out its promise to fight the High Court expulsion order for the 17 families whose homes were legally purchased has set a dangerous precedent.

The High Court ordered the expulsions and demolitions on the basis of left-wing claims that the Migron land ibelongs to Palestinian Authority Arabs, even though it was never proven who owned the land. The community was built without proper authorization and zoning, but received infrastructure from the government, although it is not on state land. The government has promised to build the communty in a nearby area on state land.