POSITIVE RESPONSE FROM THE GOI ON SETTLEMENT

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 TEL AVIV 001084 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/17/2016 TAGS: PREL PGOV KWBG IS SETTLEMENTS ISRAELI PALESTINIAN AFFAIRS SUBJECT: POSITIVE RESPONSE FROM THE GOI ON SETTLEMENT EXPANSION... BUT WHAT ABOUT THE BARRIER? Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Gene A. Cretz for reasons 1.4 (b ) and (d) This is a joint Embassy Tel Aviv/Consulate General Jerusalem cable. ¶1. (C) Summary: Michael Sfard, at attorney working for Peace Now on settlement and outposts cases, told econoff that the route of the separation barrier around the Modi'in Illit settlement bloc raised the eyebrows of human rights NGOs. They wondered why the barrier cut through Palestinian lands instead of being closer to the built-up settlements. Bimkom, the Planners for Planning Rights NGO, through its research discovered plans to expand the settlement bloc in three directions, and found that one of the planned expansions, the Mattityahu East neighborhood, was illegal because it had not gone through the GOI's approval process and was partly on private Palestinian land. When Peace Now discovered ongoing construction in late 2005, the NGO filed a petition to stop the construction and demolish the buildings, and construction was stopped in January 2006. The GOI has recently announced in the High Court that it agrees construction should be stopped because the neighborhood is illegal, but the court case is not yet finished because there are 30-40 respondents to Peace Now's petition, including the GOI, the construction companies, and representatives for the couples who have already bought living units. B'tselem, the Israeli human rights NGO, views the GOI's response in a favorable light, while Palestinian observers are more critical, noting that the standards of Israeli law are not the same as international law or the road map. End summary. -------------- Someone Notices That the Barrier Is Too Far from the Settlement -------------- ¶2. (C) Michael Sfard, an attorney retained by Peace Now to prosecute the State for construction of settlements and outposts in the West Bank, on February 26 gave econoff a brief history of the case against the construction of the Mattityahu East neighborhood in the Modi'in Illit settlement bloc. He explained that when the route of the separation barrier was first published in the press, many human rights organizations wondered why the barrier cut through lands belonging to the Palestinian village of Bilin instead of running closer to the Modi'in Illit and Qiryat Sefer 
settlements in the bloc. Bimkom, the Planners for Planning Rights NGO, researched the issue and discovered plans to expand the bloc in three different directions with the neighborhoods of Mattityahu North, Ne'ot Hapisqa, and Mattityahu East. (Note: These neighborhoods can be seen in the B'tselem/Bimkom PowerPoint presentation on the separation barrier entitled, "Under the Guise of Security," which econoff forwarded electronically to NEA/IPA and INR in January. End note.) According to Sfard, Bimkom found that the city council was planning to build beyond the municipal boundaries of the settlements and onto private Palestinian land. -------------- An Illegal Expansion of 3,000 Units In the Works -------------- ¶3. (C) Sfard explained that when Bimkom officials looked into the Mattityahu East neighborhood itself, they discovered that 1,500 units had already been planned in 1999, but were never constructed due to the start of the intifada. Once the separation barrier was announced, however, the city planners expanded the project to 3,000 units, and presented the revised master plan to the Civil Administration. According to Sfard's sources, however, the project was problematic and did not have the necessary approvals because it had not been filed in a Palestinian newspaper for public review. The GOI issued illegal tenders and building permits nevertheless, and Peace Now discovered about 750 units under construction in late 2005, of which many had been complete and approximately 500 had already been sold despite the fact that the plan had not been approved. Sfard concluded that the entire process was "the Wild, Wild West." -------------- Peace Now Goes to Court to Stop the Project -------------- ¶4. (C) Sfard filed a petition in December 2005 on behalf of Peace Now and the residents of Bilin to stop the illegal construction and demolish the buildings, and argued that the separation barrier in this case is intended to enable the expansion of settlements it the bloc. (Note: B'tselem also noted in its presentation that this is one example where the barrier has been routed taking into consideration future settlement expansion. End note.) Sfard remarked that in hearings in the High Court, the State Attorney's Office (SAO) conceded because there was "too much evidence" against it. Sfard showed econoff a packet he obtained with correspondence between the city council, the architects, and the construction companies proving that they knew project was illegal. He said that the case has been complicated, however, because there are 30-40 respondents to Peace Now's petition, including the GOI, the construction companies, and representatives for the couples who have already bought living units. -------------- GOI Admits Illegality, Construction Halted -------------- ¶5. (U) According to Israeli press reports from January 2006, the SAO in fact told the High Court that in view of the evidence presented at the hearings, it would be checking whether it should initiate criminal investigations pertaining to the construction of the neighborhood. The attorney in charge of the case agreed that an injunction to stop construction was warranted, and Justice Ayala Procaccia handed down such an injunction on January 6, 2006. In late January, the GOI went a step further and withdrew the building permits, which would have allowed the expansion of the neighborhood to the 3,000 units intended in the second master plan. It claimed that the sale of the unauthorized units had been halted until the master plan was approved, but said that the buildings that have already been built would not be demolished, nor would the residents living there be evicted. ¶6. (U) In a hearing this Wednesday, March 15, the SAO said that it is opposed to resuming any of the illegal construction in Mattityahu East, but that it does not object to letting settlers move into buildings that have been completed, according to press. Lawyers representing the project developers and construction companies claimed that about 200 people are "in a state of profound distress," because they purchased apartments but cannot move into them. Justices Aharon Barak and Procaccia reportedly told the developers that perhaps they should consider reimbursing the buyers, which led Israeli reporters to speculate if this is a preliminary step in forcing the developers to demolish the buildings in the near future. -------------- Reactions -------------- ¶7. (C) Khaled Elgindy, policy advisor for the PLO's Negotiations Support Unit, raised concerns in a conversation with ConGen poloff on March 16. He remarked that the standards of international law and the Roadmap are not the same as the standards of Israeli law. He fears that Quartet members will become too "enamored" with Israeli law at the expense of international law or the Roadmap. ¶8. (C) Conversely, Risa Zoll of the Israeli human rights NGO B'tselem told poloff on March 16 that the GOI's notice to the High Court that it will cease building in Mattityahu East is a very favorable development. Even though it is not a binding legal precedent, she said that it will likely have an effect on future planned settlement expansion. She opined that it is unfortunate that it took so long to bring about this result, but added that she is optimistic that the halting of construction in Mattityahu East will have an impact on other settlements. -------------- Comment -------------- ¶9. (C) While the SAO's opinion that illegal construction should not continue is welcome news, the underlying concern in this case is the routing of the separation barrier around the Modi'in Illit bloc. Even if the High Court rules that all of the buildings should be demolished, the barrier would still place lands from the Palestinian village of Bilin on the "Israeli" side. Palestinians would have a difficult time accessing their lands, and the GOI in 3-5 years would likely take over the lands under the Absentee Property Law, convert them to State land, and transfer them to settlers. The expansion of the Modi'in Illit bloc may still become a reality. End comment. ********************************************* ******************** Visit Embassy Tel Aviv's Classified Website: http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/nea/telaviv You can also access this site through the State Department's Classified SIPRNET website. ********************************************* ******************** JONES