IMRA - The "Machpelah House" and rule of law

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
04 April '12..




======================================

Statement by DM Barak
(Communicated by Josh Hantman, MOD International Media Adviser (Wednesday),
4.4.12, the Israel Police evacuated the settlers who had inhabited the "Patriarch House" in Hebron. The evacuation was carried out on the orders of Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

Defense Minister Barak said afterwards: "I will continue to act in order to maintain the rule of law and democracy while guaranteeing the authority of the State over its citizens."

Defense Minister Barak added that "Any request to acquire the relevant buying permit or any other transactions will be dealt with professionally and impartially, as is the practice. However, we cannot allow a situation where unlawful actions are taken to determine or dictate ad-hoc facts to the authorities."

=====================================

Before going into the specifics of the “Machpelah House”, which was evacuated today at the instruction of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a few words about Ehud Barak and the rule of law.

The laws in Israel strictly restrict work permits to foreign workers such that there is absolutely no way to get a work permit to employ a foreign worker as a housekeeper for a household of able bodied persons.

And yet, despite this, Ehud Barak saw Virginia, an illegal Filipina worker, in his home for close to a year, and we are supposed to believe that it never dawned on “Mr. Rule of Law” that there might be a problem.

By the way, Virginia told reporters that she took the place of another illegal foreign worker at the Barak home.

Pop Quiz: Why wasn’t “Mr. Rule of Law” Ehud Barak’s Cabinet Secretary Isaac Herzog indicted for illegally diverting funds from a Canadian non-profit organization to the campaign coffers of Ehud Barak? A move that could have jeopardized the non-profit status of the fund?

Answer: Lack of evidence.

Bonus question: Why “lack of evidence”?

Answer: Isaac Herzog invoked his right to remain silent to avoid incriminating himself.

A critical and fundamental principle in a democratic society is the equal application of the law.

Some examples:


The huge shopping malls built in place of corn fields on kibbutzim weren’t torn down because the land hadn’t yet been rezoned from agricultural use. It took many years to clear up the paperwork, but the absence of building permits didn’t stop the cash registers from jingling.

Pretty much every building in the Herzliya Airport compound operated for many years without proper permits.

There are major communities inside the Green Line in Israel that failed to complete an approved Urban Building Scheme (UBS) for decades. The absence of the UBS did not halt development. While technically literally every structure built in the absence of the UBS was an illegal structure none were either evacuated or demolished.

Back in October 2002 while the very same cabinet meeting that featured a shouting match over the evacuation of outposts – also for “rule of law” - approved a plan proposed by Transportation Minister Ephraim Sneh (Labor Party) to grant operating licenses for "sherut" (jitney) lines to those companies that illegally operated on the lines for at least three years without a proper license.

Again. A critical and fundamental principle in a democratic society is the equal application of the law.

Turning to the “Machpelah House”:

#1. It is an incontrovertible fact that the house was purchased. The seller’s brother complains that it wasn’t fair for Jews to use an Arab middle man to buy the property. But he admits that the sale took place.

#2. There is no need to speculate as to the impact of a Jewish presence in the house – located within the small area in Hebron where Jews are allowed - on public order. The same IDF officers and others now suggesting the move could cause a disruption already predicted a firestorm reaction by the Arab public to the move on Land Day. Yet the “Machpelah House” received next to no attention from the Arab public in the protests that day.

#3. Mr. Barak claims that "Any request to acquire the relevant buying permit or any other transactions will be dealt with professionally and impartially, as is the practice.” The practice of Mr. Barak has been to consistently refuse to approve transactions. The logic behind his refusal to approve has consistently been based on ideological/political considerations rather than the application of some kind of “impartial” standard.

#4. Mr. Barak asserts that “we cannot allow a situation where unlawful actions are taken to determine or dictate ad-hoc facts to the authorities." The transaction of the purchasing of the house was itself not an unlawful action. And the decision that the area within which the house is located should be an area where Jews can live was a “fact” that the previous Netanyahu Government reiterated in the Hebron Agreement. If anything, the only actor “dictating” today is DM Barak.

#5. If Mr. Rule of Law Barak only wanted to make the point that the house could not be occupied until he signed the papers then he can sign them tonight so that the Jews can move back in.

#6. If DM Barak declines to respect the mandate of the coalition Government it remains up to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to restore the balance.

Again. A critical and fundamental principle in a democratic society is the equal application of the law.

And even an Israeli public with an attention span of a two year old can reach the conclusion that the “Machpelah House” along with other problems on the plate from Judea and Samaria, are suffering dearly from a very unequal application of the law.

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand 
.