Migron – No Protest




The struggle to save the Jewish village of Migron began in 2006 when Peace Now filed a petition to Israel's High Court of Justice.

The home to 50 families, with some 200 children, Migron has fought back in the courts, in the Knesset  and in the media.

The battle in the courts has continued up until this past week, when the High Court once again rejected Migron's final appeal.

The claims that seventeen families from Migron had recently purchased the properties from the local Arab owner, were rejected.

Factions in the Knesset endeavoured to pass legislation which would have legalised the village (and other Jewish settlements which have also not yet been authorized).However, these initiatives did not achieve the Knesset majority vote, and fizzled out.

"Settler leaders" have also actively promoted Migron's cause in the media.

However, at no point has anyone been encouraged by these leaders to take the protest to the streets.

Some 'orange' pro-settlement folks have scorned the effectiveness of public protest, since the Gush Katif tragedy, yet last summer's left-wing social protest movement proved that people in the streets of Israel can impact the ruling Government.

So why has the right wing leadership showed no initiative whatsoever to popularize the struggle for Migron (and previously for the Ulpana neighborhood of Bet El), and bring the faithful out on the streets?

In 1983, Menachem Begin + Arik Sharon (Likud) evacuated the 4500 Jewish residents from the Jewish towns in the Sinai, as part of the Camp David accords.

However, in 1992 the nationalists camp toppled the Shamir Government in reaction to his participation in the Madrid Conference - only to see Likud replaced by Labour and the murderous Oslo Accords.

In 2005, Arik Sharon (Likud) evacuated 9000 Jewish residents of Gush Katif (which led to Hamas taking over the Gaza Strip) – while the nationalists were shown incapable of effectively opposing it.      

The one-foot-in-one-foot-out predicament of protesting Government policy, or court rulings, from within the Government itself, means that the Eretz Yisrael camp will never go all-out against a Likud led Government.

The fact is, paradoxically, that right wing Governments have always been able to weaken the 'Eretz Ysrael' camp.

Migron, Bet El/Ulpana, and many other Jewish towns and villages are once again on the Likud chopping-block.

Destroyed with barely a squeak or a whimper.



Comments

  1. David,

    "According to both the Israeli government Israel's Supreme Court and the Israeli organisation Peace Now, the land Migron sits on is owned by a number of Palestinian families living in the nearby villages of Burqa and Deir Dibwan. In July 2008, additional questions were raised as to the ownership of some of the land that Migron stands on. Apparently, land was "purchased" with forged documents."

    From "Migron" on Wikipedia. According to everyone (except the families living there) Migron is built on land belonging to someone else. Case closed, no? Either we are a country of law for everyone or not. You can't have it both ways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The legislation which did not succeed in getting threough the Knesset would indeed have "had it both ways".

      It would have created a mechanism for compensating land-owners, while enabling the establishment and continuation of Jewish towns and villages (such as Migron) in Yehudah and Shomron.

      Such a principal is well established every time authorities build a road etc on private land.

      Unfortunately, this solution, and other similar proposals, got derailed by the Likud-led Government.

      Delete
    2. So if I understand it correctly, the law would have allowed theft of the land, and then instead of returning it to it's rightful owners they can force the owners to take money for the land.

      Okay, got it.

      The next time someone breaks into your home (chas v'halila) and they're caught (okay a BIG hypothetical since this is the Bet Shemesh Police we're talking about...) then the thieves get to keep what they took from you and simply give you cash for it. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me!!

      Delete
    3. Moreover, the principle of eminent domain applies to public needs, not private settlement, and it is generally not applied after the fact to legalize a taking of land that was illegal at the time. It is a complete fallacy to suggest that the government is somehow betraying the settlement movement just because it has chosen to adhere to established legal principles (as well as to respect the decisions of the Supreme Court, the legal process in general, and international law).

      Delete
  2. "In 1983, Menachem Begin + Arik Sharon (Likud) evacuated the 4500 Jewish residents from the Jewish towns in the Sinai, as part of the Camp David accords." Correction, it was 1982.

    However, in 1991 the nationalists camp toppled the Shamir Government in reaction to his participation in the Madrid Conference - only to see Likud replaced by Labour and the murderous Oslo Accords. Correction, It was 1992.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Shimon! I'll fix that...

      Delete
  3. "means that the Eretz Yisrael camp will never go all-out against a Likud led Government"

    which is a sign of maturity, of recognizing limits, of having learned from mistakes made (also you left out the right wing taking down PM netanyahu in 99).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ben - It is a dilemma.

    You are invited to join a coalition, enabling you to have influence and implement policy - at the price of losing your ability to act against coalition policies you disagree with.

    Cost/benefit?

    Migron is part of the cost - there are and will be others.

    ReplyDelete
  5. dafka the people in the far right always say that it is better to have a left wing government; then the center/right is unified.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Does supporting settlement necessarily mean supporting it under any circumstances, regardless of whether the land is owned legally, whether the settlement was officially approved, and regardless of any other legal or tactical considerations? I believe the answer is no, and that there is a principled position that holds that the settlement enterprise should be encouraged, but within the legal and tactical parameters set by the Supreme Court and the government, respectively. I think some of the settlement supporters tend to forget that this is not the British Mandate, and that by weakening the authority of the Supreme Court, and the state generally, they are weakening the very political structures that makes settlement possible.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Marrying a Soloveitchik