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