Bloodshed or Compromise, by David Wilder
Excerpts;
Even prior to the ‘deal’, the defense establishment had already begun the process of voiding any possible Arab claims to the former ‘market’. The defense establishment notified the Supreme Court of this plan and added its intention to “weigh leasing the structures to Hebron’s Jewish community.” The actual legal process by which the Hebron Arab municipality was notified of the intentions to void any possible legal rights to the site began prior to the agreement reached between the community and the state. This process was approved by none other than Attorney General Menachem Mazuz himself.
Mazuz’s declaration that the agreement reached between the Hebron community and the state is null and void is ludicrous.
Mazuz himself participated in authoring the response to the Supreme Court from December 2005, which, as stated above, already agreed in principle to lease the structures to the Hebron Jewish community. (The courts already accepted the fact that the land on which the buildings sit is Jewish-owned and legally belongs to the community.)
Mazuz was directly responsible for the brutal Amona expulsion and destruction because, in his opinion, “no viable agreement” between the sides was possible. In the case of Hebron, an agreement was not only possible, it was achieved and implemented (by one side). Why then would he, after the fact, reject such an agreement, which explicitly prevented the scenes from Amona in Hebron?
Defense Minister Sha’ul Mofaz himself said on Israeli radio, “The wholesale market in Hebron is on Jewish land and the building belongs to the Hebron municipality. Therefore, we told them, if they voluntarily evacuate it, in the future, legally, according to the recommendations of the attorney general, they will be able to return.”
Minister of Public Security Gideon Ezra said, “Our experience and our success in Hebron to reach a solution, and as a result, violence was prevented… I am happy about that.”
The intermediate report of the Knesset parliamentary committee of inquiry into the events at Amona: “The compromise reached a short time before [Amona] concerning the eviction of Jews from the wholesale market in Hebron, implicitly supports the idea that the two sides, the government and the settlers, acted in good faith with the intention of reaching an agreement acceptable to both sides.”
Commentary;
The conclusion to be drawn from the Chevron/Amona experience, as well from as the bogus disengagement compensation law under which the regime has NOT fully compensated even one Gush Katif or Shomron refugee, must be that there is no one in the Government of Israel with a modicom of honesty or integrity. No One!
And this should be a lesson taken to heart by those who would claim to fight future expulsions from Yehuda and the Shomron while at the same time “planning and negotiating with the government for the day after!” MB