By: sh

sh — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 22:55:29 +0000

This was Rabbis for Human Rights’ press release after the hearing (the next one will be in about four months).
.
“Today’s initial High Court discussion regarding the petition of “Regavim” demanding the demolition of the Palestinian village of Susya was largely procedural, but highlighted the dangers to the village:
.
1. In all likelihood the court will accede to Regavim’s request for an order freezing all building by the Palestinians.
2. The judges exhibited a very narrow and formalistic approach to the situation.
.
Wednesday’s High Court discussion largely dealt with the procedural question of whether to unite Regavim’s petition to demolish Susya and petitions to prevent the demolition of Susya. However, during the course of the discussion the judges indicated that they were inclined to accede to Regavim’s request for a temporary restraining ordr that could paralyze the lives of the residents. This approach unfortunately indicates a formalistic “Law and order” approach which doesn’t take into account the radically different civilian and legal status of Palestinians under military rule, as opposed to settlers who are citizens of the country ruling the territory. We hope that the Court will eventually favor an approach focusing on the actual realities, as opposed to a formalistic and procedural blindness to the inequality inherent in the status of the two populations. The procedural approach ignores questions of institutionalized discrimination in the Occupied Territories which are incompatible with the basic priniciples of democracy.
.
Even according to the a dry and formal approach, the regional military commander is obligated to the principles of international law that require the military regime to attend to the welfare of the population over which it rules. It cannot be said that the regime is doing this in a situation in which the village cannot legally build even one home for its residents, after the army as the ruling authority has twice forcibly expelled them from their lands.
.
Rabbis For Human Rights, representing the residents of Susya against Regavim and the adjacent settlement also named Susya, will continue to fight for justice in the rest of the High Court discussions. We will attempt to expose and debunk the underlying base assumptions which Regavim has used to mislead the Court, even has the State has acquiesced through silence.”

By: Arib

Arib — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 19:59:59 +0000

The only one wanting people to do the overlooking is Yariv in this case. Firstly, I am sure Yariv didn’t update the forum that the Supreme Court Judges shot down each and everyone of RHR’s arguments in court today. Justice Grunis even made a hand gesture in the direction of the Knesset saying political discussions happen there…..
The Justices were especially disdained at the argument, that building illegally is the only option for Arabs in Area C due to a lack of building permits especially as the figures the Civil Admin give as proof of town plans approved for Area C for Arabs is suitable for a population 10 times more than in Area C.
Let’s be honest, the Arabs do not ask for building approval because that would be like them accepting israeli rule, so instead they build where they want, what they want and then you wonder why the supreme court rules against them.
If the truth be known, if you want to speak about equality, there are ~30,000 illegal Arab houses built in the West Bank vs. ~2,000 Jewish ones. Anyone can go to the cogat website and see that as a percentage of the overall number they destroy illegal Jewish homes at a lot higher rate. Oh and don’t believe that we are only talking abut tin roofs here. I have not seen finer houses (not in Herziliya Pituach or Savion) than the illegal Arab houses flourishing in the West Bank. And for those of you who are too brain washed to believe this, send me your email addresses and I will send you lots of photos with geo tags and time stamps. As we say, let the facts speak for themselves.

Comments on: South Hebron Hills: A military regime for none or for all

By: sh

By: Arib