FURTHER ANALYSIS OF MOJ DRAFT PROPOSAL ON ILLEGAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 TEL AVIV 003458

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/30/2016
TAGS: KWBG PGOV PREL IS
SUBJECT: FURTHER ANALYSIS OF MOJ DRAFT PROPOSAL ON ILLEGAL
OUTPOSTS

REF: TEL AVIV 03438

Classified By: Ambassador Richard H. Jones for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)

--------------
What Happens to post-March 2001 Outposts?
--------------


1. (C) Dror Etkes, settlement watch coordinator for Peace
Now, told econoff on August 30 that there is no specific
mention in the draft MOJ proposal about which outposts,
whether pre- or post-March 2001, are expected to be
retroactively approved. He said that the proposal simply
makes it easy for the GOI "to create the tools or platforms
to legalize whatever they want." He added that it is also
unclear which outposts would be able to receive government
funding through the "exceptions committee" (reftel). From
his reading of the draft proposal, "there are no restrictions
on funding, whether or not the outpost is legal." Econoff
asked whether, in theory, the GOI could retroactively approve
post-March 2001 outposts, which are supposed to be evacuated
based on Israeli commitments to the USG, and then claim to
the USG that it cannot evacuate them because they are now
legal. Etkes said that in theory the GOI could try to avoid
evacuating post-March 2001 outposts that it has authorized,
but opined that this is unlikely. He said that there are
differences in law and international politics, and he thinks
it would be difficult for the GOI to play this card with the
USG. He said that ultimately, however, it is clear that
Israel is trying to make it easier to build in the West Bank.

--------------
"It's Only a Draft"
--------------


2. (C) Brig. Gen. (ret.) Baruch Spiegel and Lt. Col. Oded
Herman told EconCouns and econoff on August 30 that the MOD
has not yet formed an official opinion on the draft MOJ
proposal, but stressed that the proposal is in draft form and
is not final. Herman added that the Sasson committee is only
half-way through its work due to delays caused by Committee
Chairman Haim Ramon's judicial problems, and thus still has
more details to check into before it produces a final copy.
Spiegel said that he expects "a big fight" within the GOI
about the proposal, and promised EconCouns that the proposal
would not be finalized without consulting with the U.S.


3. (C) Spiegel opined, however, that the draft proposal
gives the government more control by spreading the
decision-making on where to build to a committee of six
ministers, rather than just the Ministry of Defense (MOD).
He remarked that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert still wants to
talk with the settlers to convince them to move to "legal
places," and commented that the GOI still wants to evacuate
outposts. Spiegel insisted that the purpose of the proposal
was to induce settlers to eventually evacuate West Bank
settlements and outposts in a more peaceful manner than took
place during GAZA Disengagement.

--------------
Settlers Getting Free Reign?
--------------


4. (C) After a more careful reading of the draft proposal,
Yariv Oppenheimer, secretary general of Peace Now, said that
it is "more negative" than he originally thought, and
suggested that the U.S. get involved by telling the GOI that
the draft proposal is bad. Oppenheimer agreed that the
decision on where to build is distributed among six
ministers, but added that now the settlers have free reign on
what exactly to build, and do not need an MOD signature to
get building permits. He explained that the local
authorities can decide what gets built and when to expand in
the West Bank, whereas before the Defense Minister, at least
theoretically, had to "approve every single window" that was
placed in the West Bank. He commented that the system to
build is currently strict and complicated, even if "we know
that the settlers don't always follow it," but said that the
proposal now allows the settlers to move and build more
easily in the West Bank.


5. (C) In response to econoff's question on why the GOI has
formulated this plan, Oppenheimer opined that the government
is trying to strike a deal with the settlers to avoid a
confrontation over outposts now. According to Oppenheimer,
the GOI can evacuate a few outposts to show the U.S. that it
is doing something, but in exchange it is trying to co-opt
the settlers by retroactively approving some outposts and
giving them a freer hand in building in the West Bank. From
the GOI's perspective, it considers that "the outposts are
small game anyway" because it has assumed that there would be
a unilateral WITHDRAWAL in the future, and eventually all
outposts in the West Bank would have to be dismantled. In
essence, the outposts can be approved now to avoid
confrontations like Amona because the government thinks they
will eventually be evacuated, he explained. The problem is
that there is no disengagement plan anymore, Oppenheimer
continued, and the settlers clearly gain from these plans.
He speculated that Acting Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit
would try to change this proposal because he is "trying to
change everything that Haim Ramon did, because it's Haim
Ramon."

********************************************* ********************
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