Grenade hurled at IDF base near Bethlehem
No casualties or damage in attack, which comes amid escalation in West Bank violence
January 6, 2014, 11:43 pm
1
A Palestinian attacker hurled a
grenade Monday at an IDF base near Bethlehem, marking an escalation in
violent incidents in the West Bank.No
one was hurt and no damage was caused in the attack, which came hours
after US Secretary of State John Kerry wrapped up his 10th visit to the
region.On Christmas,
an IDF patrol vehicle came under fire from a passing car near the West
Bank settlement of Tekoa, in the Etzion Bloc south of Jerusalem. No
injuries or damage were reported.The soldiers on patrol reported hearing shots from a nearby vehicle, but were unable to apprehend the fleeing suspects.
IDF frees alleged ‘price tag’ attackers held by Palestinians
Settlers reportedly beaten after entering West Bank village to ‘retaliate’ for Israeli authorities uprooting olive trees
January 7, 2014, 4:52 pm
8-The Times of Israel
The IDF negotiated the release
Tuesday of Israeli settlers who were captured by Palestinians and held
in a building in the village of Qusra near the West Bank city of
Nablus. The settlers had been beaten by their captors.They
allegedly approached Qusra in an attempt to carry out a “price tag”
attack, in protest over the Israeli Civil Administration’s uprooting
earlier in the day of a settler olive grove near the West Bank outpost
of Esh Kodesh.The settlers, said to have come from Esh Kodesh, were reported to have clashed with the Palestinian village’s residents.The settlers were surrounded and held captive
for more than two hours, Channel 2 reported, saying 16 settlers were
involved. Other reports put the number of detained settlers at 13,
though Qusra’s village council head later claimed only eight settlers
had been held there during the clashes. The army said 11 settlers were
evacuated from the building where they were held.A Qusra resident said that the group had
“attacked a Palestinian youth” and were “surrounded in the house,” where
they had congregated.“I was tending my fields when a group of
around 30 settlers came down the hill and attacked us with stones,” a
Palestinian farmer told Reuters. ”We chased them and they fled to a
house under construction. They were cornered there and some of the
people here beat them — they had attacked us on our own land.”But one of the settlers injured in the clash
told Army Radio that he and his friends were merely hiking in the area
and were attacked unprovoked.
Settlers
from the Esh Kodesh outpost, leaving the West Bank village of Qusra,
January 7 (photo credit: Zachariah, Rabbis for Human Rights)
A resident of the village named Ziad disputed
the claim that the settlers were hiking. He showed a Channel 2 reporter a
sledgehammer that he said was brandished by one of the settlers and
said they were also armed with metal pipes and wooden beams.If they were hiking, he said, “Why do they need to veil their faces? They came to attack farmers. They broke olive trees.”“Of course we hit them,” he continued. “I have
to defend myself. The [Palestinian] guys could have killed them. They
held them for three hours. We told them we could have killed them but
didn’t. ‘Next time maybe we’ll kill you,’ we said.”The IDF said in a statement quoted by the AFP
news agency: ”During the confrontation mutual rock-hurling took place,
injuring some of the Israelis.”“Initial inquiry suggests the confrontation
erupted following a law enforcement activity which took place earlier
today in Esh Kodesh,” the statement added, alluding to allegations of
‘price tag’ violence on the part of the settlers.Price tag
attacks, acts of vandalism usually performed against Arab property and
typically carried out by Jewish nationalists in retribution for
government moves, have become increasingly common in recent years.
Mosques, churches, dovish Israeli groups and Israeli military bases have
been targeted in such attacks.In late December, a home and three vehicles in
a West Bank refugee camp were vandalized, in a suspected “price tag”
attack related to the release of 26 Palestinian prisoners and ongoing
peace talks.Israeli officials have vowed to crack down on the attacks.
The term “1967 lines” has been used regarding talks between Israel
and the Palestinian Authority, in reference to the PA claim of ownership
to all land that was under Jordanian control between 1949 and 1967.
The words have been used to conceal the true weight of the concessions being demanded, Minister of Economy Naftali Bennett (Jewish Home) warned Tuesday, in a speech at the Institute for National Security Studies.“Friends, the games are over. We won’t play with words anymore: the ’67 lines’ means splitting Jerusalem, and giving up the Mount of Olives – where Menachem Begin, Rabbi Kook, and Eliezer Ben-Yehuda are buried – and giving up the Kotel, the Temple Mount and the Old City,” he declared.
“How will history remember a leader who agrees to give up Jerusalem? How will it remember the first leader in Jewish history who dares to do that? And what’s more, to do it voluntarily?” Bennett asked.“Is the prayer of Jews worldwide, ‘In Your mercy, return to Your city, Jerusalem’ a party slogan, which can be changed overnight?” he demanded.A concession like that may win Israel temporary goodwill from the international community, Bennett said, but it would come at a high price: “another round of attacks and terrorism, which we would come into weaker than before, and with no moral right to defend ourselves after having declared that what is ours – is not ours,” he warned.“These are the decisions that take real leadership,” he continued. “That we will never agree to give up Jerusalem, a united city under Israeli sovereignty, and only Israeli. We will not accept a terrorist Palestinian state, we will not accept an agreement based on the 67 lines.“We will not exchange territory as if we were doing cut-and-paste on some Word document on the computer. We will not agree to a border along Highway 6, meaning rockets on Highway 4.“We will not stay in a government that endangers our children’s future and divides our capital due to international pressure. We won’t sit in a government that makes the easy, and dangerous, decision,” he declared.Regarding international pressure on Israel, Bennett said, “We didn’t come here in order to be the world’s experiment… We will make decisions about ourselves by ourselves, for the simple reason that only we will pay the price… Are those who pressure us today going to be killed in our place tomorrow?”Israel should not fear standing up to international pressure argued Bennett, saying “We’ve had great leaders in Israel who knew how to say ‘no.’ We survived.”
Bennett: No to '67 Lines,' No to Splitting Jerusalem
Bennett slams veiled references to splitting Jerusalem, warns the world, ‘We’re not your experiment.’
By Maayana Miskin-First Publish: 1/7/2014, 7:56 PM-Israelnationalnews
Economy Minister Naftali Bennett-Flash 90
The words have been used to conceal the true weight of the concessions being demanded, Minister of Economy Naftali Bennett (Jewish Home) warned Tuesday, in a speech at the Institute for National Security Studies.“Friends, the games are over. We won’t play with words anymore: the ’67 lines’ means splitting Jerusalem, and giving up the Mount of Olives – where Menachem Begin, Rabbi Kook, and Eliezer Ben-Yehuda are buried – and giving up the Kotel, the Temple Mount and the Old City,” he declared.
“How will history remember a leader who agrees to give up Jerusalem? How will it remember the first leader in Jewish history who dares to do that? And what’s more, to do it voluntarily?” Bennett asked.“Is the prayer of Jews worldwide, ‘In Your mercy, return to Your city, Jerusalem’ a party slogan, which can be changed overnight?” he demanded.A concession like that may win Israel temporary goodwill from the international community, Bennett said, but it would come at a high price: “another round of attacks and terrorism, which we would come into weaker than before, and with no moral right to defend ourselves after having declared that what is ours – is not ours,” he warned.“These are the decisions that take real leadership,” he continued. “That we will never agree to give up Jerusalem, a united city under Israeli sovereignty, and only Israeli. We will not accept a terrorist Palestinian state, we will not accept an agreement based on the 67 lines.“We will not exchange territory as if we were doing cut-and-paste on some Word document on the computer. We will not agree to a border along Highway 6, meaning rockets on Highway 4.“We will not stay in a government that endangers our children’s future and divides our capital due to international pressure. We won’t sit in a government that makes the easy, and dangerous, decision,” he declared.Regarding international pressure on Israel, Bennett said, “We didn’t come here in order to be the world’s experiment… We will make decisions about ourselves by ourselves, for the simple reason that only we will pay the price… Are those who pressure us today going to be killed in our place tomorrow?”Israel should not fear standing up to international pressure argued Bennett, saying “We’ve had great leaders in Israel who knew how to say ‘no.’ We survived.”
US ambassador: Framework draft to be presented soon
Dan Shapiro says interim proposal for Israeli-Palestinian accord will cover security, borders, Jerusalem and all other ‘core issues’
January 7, 2014, 3:42 pm
6
The US ambassador to Israel said
Tuesday that a framework proposal on all issues at the heart of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be presented to both sides soon.Dan
Shapiro told Israel Radio that the proposal would cover security
arrangements, borders, Jerusalem and all the other “core issues.”He said it will be presented to the Israelis and the Palestinians in a few weeks’ time.US Secretary of State John Kerry has been
visiting the region often since talks resumed last July, shuttling
between Israel and Palestinian leaders to mediate talks.Kerry has been pushing for the outlines of a
peace deal. He is trying to nudge Palestinian Authority President
Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu closer to a
pact that would establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel.He left the region on Monday having failed to
win agreement from the sides on a framework for continued negotiations
for a permanent deal. Some reports suggest he will return as soon as
next week.Netanyahu told his Likud Knesset faction
Monday that “there is no American framework document yet,” and that even
if it could be agreed upon, it would not be binding on the sides,
Channel 2 reported. Netanyahu also assured the Likud MKs that he had not
given in to American pressure for more flexible positions regarding the
fate of Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, and said he was only too aware
of the consequences of dismantling settlements in the absence of a
viable peace accord, the report said.Kerry has made 10 trips to the region this
year, initially expressing confidence that a permanent peace accord,
providing for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, could be wrapped up
by the end of April. More recently, though, evidently realizing that
this was a tall order, he has been pushing the less ambitious
“framework” idea.Netanyahu on Monday, however, reportedly told
the Likud that even the framework plan, which Kerry has not yet been
able to finalize, would not be binding on the two sides. The prime
minister also said there would be elements in the non-binding paper that
he and his party colleagues wouldn’t like, and elements that the
Palestinians wouldn’t like.The two sides have long been at odds over
almost every aspect of the core issues involved in a two-state accord.
Kerry has been reportedly pushing Netanyahu to agree to at least keep
talking on the basis of a Palestinian state to be established along the
pre-1967 lines, with land-swap adjustments, and urging Abbas to
recognize Israel as a Jewish state.Beyond these points, the two sides are said to
disagree over security arrangements, border demarcations, the fate of
Jerusalem and Palestinian refugee demands under a permanent deal. There
have also been disputes over who will be released in a final phase of
prisoner releases by Israel of terror convicts in the coming months. And
it is unclear whether the Palestinians are prepared to extend the
current talks beyond their scheduled expiry date in late April.An official in Ramallah told Palestinian
newspaper al-Ayyam that the meetings recently held between Kerry and the
Palestinian leadership failed to reach an agreement on any issue.“We talked about everything, but without agreement on anything,” the official said in an article published Monday.According to the newspaper, the Palestinians
presented their positions on all the issues to Kerry, and are expecting
to be presented with the positions of the US secretary of state for the
framework agreement.
US said to seek adding ‘Jewish state’ language to Arab Peace Initiative
John Kerry reportedly preparing to push idea at upcoming meeting with Arab League officials
January 7, 2014, 10:43 am
14
The US is reportedly exploring
the possibility of altering language in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative
to include recognition of Israel as a Jewish State should the country
reach a peace deal with the Palestinians.According
to a Monday report in Palestinian newspaper al-Ayyam, citing Western
sources, the US negotiating team is investigating the possibility.The changed language, which would insert a key
Israeli demand into the 2002 Saudi-drafted Arab Peace Initiative, would
also include the stipulation that Israel’s Arab citizens not be
affected by recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.The initiative’s current language calls for
the Arab world to offer comprehensive peace with Israel in exchange for a
full pullout from all territories it captured in the 1967 Mideast war.The Palestinian report comes a day after US
Secretary of State John Kerry left the region after four days of intense
talks, including several hours in Riyadh in which he said he gained
Saudi backing for his peace push.Ramallah has not given permission for any changes to the Arab League initiative, according to al-Ayyam.Kerry is expected to meet in Paris soon with
Arab League foreign ministers who sit on the monitoring committee of the
Arab Peace Initiative, the paper reported, and may present the idea to
them.
It is not clear when the meeting would take place.Kerry’s trip to the region was reportedly to push the sides to agree to a framework plan which would guide future discussions.The US diplomat met with Saudi leader King
Abdullah on Sunday and said the king’s 2002 initiative “has been part of
the framework that we’ve been piecing together — both in inspiration
and substance.”The initiative, revolutionary when it was introduced, has been endorsed by the Arab League and, technically, remains in effect.“Saudi Arabia’s initiative holds out the
prospect that if the parties could arrive at a peaceful resolution, you
could instantaneously have peace between the 22 Arab nations and 35
Muslim nations, all of whom have said they will recognize Israel if
peace is achieved,” Kerry said.“Imagine how that changes the dynamics of
travel, of business, of education, of opportunity in this region, of
stability. Imagine what peace could mean for trade and tourism, what it
could mean for developing technology and talent, for job opportunities
for the younger generation, for generations in all of these countries,”
Kerry said.Israel, however, has conditioned any peace
deal with the Palestinians on recognition of the country as a Jewish
state, a demand the Palestinians have rejected.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his
Likud Knesset faction Monday that “there is no American framework
document yet,” and that even if it could be agreed, it would not be
binding on the sides, Channel 2 reported. He also assured the Likud MKs
that he had not given in to American pressure for more flexible
positions regarding the fate of Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, and
said he was only too aware of the consequences of dismantling
settlements in the absence of a viable peace accord, the report said.
Kerry has paid 10 trips to the region this
year, initially expressing confidence that a permanent peace accord,
providing for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, could be wrapped up
by the end of April. More recently, though, evidently realizing that
this was a tall order, he has been pushing the less ambitious
“framework” idea.
Netanyahu on Monday, however, reportedly told
the Likud that even the framework plan, which Kerry has not yet been
able to finalize, would not be binding to the two sides. The prime
minister also said there would be elements in the non-binding paper that
he and his party colleagues wouldn’t like, and elements that the
Palestinians wouldn’t like.The two sides are believed to be at odds over
almost every aspect of the core issues involved in a two-state accord.
Kerry has been reportedly pushing Netanyahu to agree to at least keep
talking on the basis of a Palestinian state to be established along the
pre-1967 lines, with land-swap adjustments, and urging Abbas to
recognize Israel as a Jewish state.Beyond these points, the two sides are said to
disagree over security arrangements, border demarcations, the fate of
Jerusalem and Palestinian refugee demands under a permanent deal. There
have also been disputes over who will be released in a final phase of
prisoner releases by Israel of terror convicts in the coming months. And
it is unclear whether the Palestinians are prepared to extend the
current talks beyond their scheduled expiry date in late April.
A Palestinian official told al-Ayyam that the
meetings recently held between Kerry and the Palestinian leadership
failed to reach an agreement on any issue.“We talked about everything, but without agreement on anything,” the official said.According to the newspaper, the Palestinians
presented their positions on all the issues to Kerry, and are expecting
to be presented with the positions of the US secretary of state on the
framework agreement.The Palestinian official added that when the
Palestinian Authority speaks about East Jerusalem, it does not mean
outlying villages such as Abu Dis or the Shuafat area, but rather the
city itself. One of the ideas presented by Kerry during the talks on the
formulation of the framework agreement is that Jerusalem would be
united but the Palestinians would “have their capital within it.”
Unilateral Palestinian statehood — real threat or ‘big bluff’?
Pundits agree that PA action in the international arena drove Israel to negotiate; what they differ on is what’ll happen if talks break down
January 7, 2014, 11:47 pm
1-The times of Israel
Notwithstanding the best
intentions of US Secretary of State John Kerry, the current round of
peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians may fail (shocking, we
know). But what happens then? Well, the current Israeli government may
be fine with the status quo — the emphatic absence of a Palestinian
state — but Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has vowed to
resume steps to unilaterally advance the PA’s statehood bid, a move
Jerusalem is extremely wary of.Yet Israeli experts disagree whether Israel really has something
to worry about. Is it just a “big bluff” (as one international law
scholar claimed), or would a unilateral Palestinian bid make
it impossible for Israel to ever reach a peace agreement that takes its
positions into consideration (as another academic argued)? To prevent, or at least defer, the unilateral
Palestinians statehood campaign — that was one of the main reasons why
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however grudgingly, agreed to resume
direct peace talks with the Palestinians in July 2013. The PA’s
commitment to refrain from unilateral steps during the course of the
talks was a large factor in the Israeli government’s decision to sit down at the negotiating table — perhaps even more so than Kerry’s relentless pressure.Last week, after Israeli ministers advanced a bill to annex the Jordan Valley, Saeb Erekat, the PA’s chief negotiator, said that
the proper response would be to “seek statehood recognition by the
United Nations and other international bodies.” Abbas, however, has
promised to remain at the table at least until the April deadline
initially set for the talks. But if the current efforts break down
without an agreement — and if the past has taught us anything, it’s that
the next crisis of faith is generally merely a matter of time — the
Palestinians have made it clear that they won’t hesitate to turn to the
international community.“At the end of the day, these negotiations
won’t succeed, and Abu Mazen [Abbas] has a strong card in his hand: an
appeal to the UN institutions,” said Ahmed Tibi, an Israeli MK who once
served as adviser to Yasser Arafat and maintains close contacts with the
Palestinian leadership, in an interview last
week. “There are more than 60 agencies in the UN, and sooner or later
he will turn to them. That will cause a diplomatic confrontation.”
Tibi is certainly not alone in his fear that
the talks will collapse sooner or later. Indeed, most members of
Israel’s government are exceedingly skeptical. And yet they agreed to
start negotiating. They voted to release Palestinian prisoners and
risked being blamed for the talks’ failure (including the threat of
European Union sanctions), just because the Palestinians promised that
they wouldn’t make further moves to be recognized as a state, at least
not for for nine months.But what exactly is Israel afraid of? After all, “Palestine” is already recognized
as a nonmember observer state by the United Nations; an overwhelming
majority of 138 states supported that moved in November 2012 (nine
countries opposed and 41 abstained). The chances of a “State of Palestine” being
admitted as a full-fledged member of the UN prior to signing a peace
treaty with Israel are minimal. The Americans have vetoed such efforts
in the past and there are no indications they wouldn’t do it again.At least, so goes the conventional wisdom. One
Israeli diplomatic official warned, however, that there are no
guarantees that the US will forever continue to put the kibosh on a
Palestinian application for full UN membership.“If Abbas gets all other members of the
Security Council to agree, he might manage to drive the Americans into a
corner,” the official said. “Washington might at some point become fed
up with being the only country to oppose Palestinian statehood, and
embarrassed and fearful of international isolation, they might accede to
the Palestinians’ request.”‘Since the Palestinians joined
UNESCO, they hijacked the organization’s agenda and now it’s all about
bashing Israel. Their strategy is working’But even assuming that for the time being the
Americans will continue to wield their veto power, the mere fact of
Palestinian statehood coming to a vote again and again will slowly have
an impact, an Israeli academic specializing in international law said.
He recalled that the UN Security Council did not formally condemn South
African apartheid because of the British veto, but eventually an
international consensus emerged to demand the racist regime’s immediate
demise. A similar scenario is plausible vis-à-vis Palestinian statehood,
said the academic, who asked to remain unnamed because he didn’t want
to be quoted comparing Israeli policies with apartheid.In the meantime, though, the Palestinians
don’t need full UN membership to incriminate Israel on the international
stage, an Israeli official said. As soon as they are admitted into the
World Health Organization, Habitat or other UN programs, “they could
have our arms twisted,” he said.Before the current round of peace talks
commenced, the Palestinians were quite successful in their quest to
achieve “incremental recognition,” he said. “Since they joined UNESCO,
they hijacked the organization’s agenda and now it’s all about bashing
Israel all the time,” added the official, who asked to remain anonymous
so he could more freely discuss sensitive diplomatic issues. “All the
Palestinians do all day is get yet another condemnation against Israel.
And their strategy is working.”In 2011 UNESCO — the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — admitted “Palestine”
as a full member. Since then, Israeli and Palestinian officials have
sparred about UNESCO’s positions and declarations vis-à-vis the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During a debate at the 37th session of
UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee in June, the Jordanian delegation, at
the behest of the PA, submitted a resolution slamming Israel
over its Jerusalem policies. UNESCO officials at first denied the
resolution’s very existence but it was eventually adopted by a large
majority.
Yet scarier, in the eyes of some Israelis, is
the prospect of Palestinians turning to the ICC and suing Israeli
leaders for war crimes or crimes against humanity. Joining the
Hague-based court is a bit more complicated, because it would expose the
PA itself to law suits, and it isn’t clear that membership in the ICC
would be in its best interests, the Israeli official said. “We’re not
really worried about being condemned by the ICC; they can threaten
whatever they want,” he said. On the other hand, it would be “a major
headache” if the Palestinians did try to drag Israelis in front of the
court for alleged misdeeds.“Such a process would involve such besmearing
and casting of allegations that would take us a long time to defuse,”
the official said. “Not only is it a waste of time, but it’s a
declaration of diplomatic war. And if it’s a war, you need to dedicate
resources to fighting it, and doing this will prevent us from focusing
on other measures to defuse the conflict.”
In 2009, Palestinian Justice Minister Ali
Khashan asked the ICC to investigate Israel’s conduct in the West Bank
and the Gaza Strip. The prosecutor’s office initially declined the
request, noting that the Palestinian Authority was not a state and that
consequently the court had no jurisdiction to launch an investigation
into acts committed in the territories it claims. After “Palestine”
attained nonmember state status at the UN in 2012, the prosecutor’s
office released a brief statement saying that it “will consider the legal implications of this resolution.” It has yet to issue a new ruling on the matter.
‘A big bluff and an empty threat’
According to Alan Baker, a former legal adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, the Palestinian threat of a unilateral statehood drive
is absolutely nothing to be afraid of. “This is a big bluff; it’s just
an empty threat,” he said. “So the Palestinians will go to the
International Health Organization, the International Postal Union and
the Civil Aviation Authority. So what? That won’t give them statehood.
It won’t make a difference, because Israel is still sitting in Judea and
Samaria [the West Bank], and any change can only come about as the
result of a negotiation process.”And there is no cause to fear a Palestinian onslaught against Israel in international forums, averred Baker, a former Israeli ambassador to Canada, as such attacks have been going on for years. “There
are 20 or so anti-Israel resolutions at the UN at any given moment, so
how is this night different from any other night?” Palestinian attempts to influence the agendas
of UN bodies actually did more damage to the credibility of those
international organs than to Israel’s interests, he posited. Many
diplomats and parliamentarians have told him, he said, that the
international community is becoming “increasingly fed up” with
Palestinians trying to appropriate UN organizations for their political
purposes and, in the process, distracting those bodies from their actual
jobs.Neither does the specter of an ICC trial
against Israel faze Baker. “That’s a completely empty and utterly
unrealistic threat,” he said. Even if the court’s prosecutor ruled that
“Palestine” could file a complaint against Israeli leaders for war
crimes, an investigation would have zero chances of succeeding because
the Palestinians would need to prove that the alleged offenses took
place on Palestinian sovereign territory. “But the Palestinians
themselves agreed [in the 1993 Oslo Accords] that the final status of
territories is subject to negotiations.”Likewise, Israel has nothing to fear from
“Palestine” turning to the UN’s International Court of Justice, Baker
said. It’s possible that it would be asked to write an advisory opinion
on Israel’s actions in the West Bank – as it has in the past – but “there’s no guarantee that it wouldn’t be counterproductive to whoever is asking for it.”So if Israel has nothing to worry about, in
terms of unilateral Palestinian steps toward statehood, why did
Netanyahu let himself be pressured into entering peace talks? One senior cabinet minister told The Times of
Israel that it was in Jerusalem’s interest to “buy time.” While the
talks may ultimately amount to nothing, he suggested, nine months of
diplomatic quiet were well worth the effort.Baker didn’t buy that argument, saying he
failed to understand why the American and Israeli governments gave
credence to Palestinian threats. “The damage was caused by Kerry, when
he said if Israel doesn’t make concessions Israel would be under attack
by international community — as if they aren’t already. The Palestinians
are laughing all the way to the bank,” he said. “I’m flabbergasted at
the naivete that exists within the US administration, but even more so
in the Israel government.”The only possible reason for Jerusalem’s
behavior was that Washington might have threatened not to veto a
Palestinian attempt to get full UN membership, Baker surmised. “I
wouldn’t put it past Kerry, for whom I have absolutely no respect, to
make such a threat,” he said.‘How will IDF soldiers react when their superiors are being accused of war crimes and the like?’Amichai Cohen, a senior lecturer of
international law at Ono Academic College, said that even if
international courts are unlikely to condemn Israel, such a scenario
wasn’t impossible. At the ICC, for instance, it is the chief prosecutor
who makes these decisions based on his own criteria, and he might not
take into consideration the views of Israeli experts and pundits. “When
assessing a certain risk, you don’t only look at how low the chance is
of a certain scenario coming true, but you also think about the damage
that could be done in the unlikely case that it does come true,” he
said.Less than the threat of censure, the mere idea
of Israeli politicians and generals standing trial could inflict great
damage on the state, both externally (in terms of reputation) and
internally, Cohen continued. “How will IDF soldiers react when their
superiors are being accused of war crimes and the like?” he asked. The
very prospect of such a scenario does not necessarily mean that
Jerusalem should feel pressured to make concessions; there is cause,
however, to take the Palestinians’ threat into consideration, he said.Jerusalem
currently does not recognize the Palestinian Authority as a state, he
said, and much of the international community understands that a peace
treaty will have to be signed between both sides, and that Israel has
legitimate demands for any deal. But as soon as the world welcomes
“Palestine” as a legitimate member in the family of nations — with or
without Jerusalem’s blessings — Israeli claims and arguments against
Palestinian statehood will not be heard anymore, Cohen predicted. “We
haven’t arrived at that stage yet… but we’re getting there.”
Supreme Court defends private security in East Jerusalem
Israel’s highest court rebuffs argument that private guards funded by the Housing Ministry carry out unlawful policing
January 7, 2014, 5:18 pm
0-The times of Israel
The Supreme Court on Tuesday
indicated it would uphold government funding for private security
companies guarding dozens of Jewish compounds in East Jerusalem,
rebuffing an appeal by local Palestinian residents and the Association
for Civil Rights in Israel.The
Housing Ministry currently employs two private security companies to
guard 70 Jewish compounds located within Arab neighborhoods in East
Jerusalem at an annual cost of NIS 67 million ($19 million). According
to ACRI, 370 security guards are tasked with guarding 2,500 Jewish
residents in these neighborhoods.The outsourcing of security for Jewish
compounds in East Jerusalem dates back to the early 1990s, when private
contractors were employed to guard the home of then-housing minister
Ariel Sharon in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City.Ongoing friction between the security guards
and local Palestinian residents, sometimes escalating to armed violence,
led a government-appointed committee in 2006 to recommend transferring
security responsibility from the Housing Ministry to the police. The
recommendation was initially adopted by the government but overturned
four months later.
In its petition, ACRI argued that security in
East Jerusalem should be placed solely in the hands of the police,
claiming that armed private security companies unlawfully carry out
policing duties such as neighborhood patrols. In September 2010, Silwan
resident Samer Sarhan was shot dead by a security guard in a case still
being debated in court.The state, acting as defendant in the case,
argued on Tuesday that the prerogatives of the security companies do not
amount to policing and are limited primarily to static defense of
residential homes. An average of 140 violent incidents a month in East
Jerusalem justify the existence of enhanced state-funded security, the
state added, noting that guards are legally and professionally
subordinate to the police.
Declining to discontinue the activity of the
security companies, the three-judge panel headed by Chief Justice Asher
Grunis proposed establishing an arbitration body within the Housing
Ministry to deal with complaints against security guards on a
case-by-case basis, a proposal ACRI seemed inclined to reject. Justice
Grunis said that if ACRI refuses to accept the compromise proposal
within 48 hours it is likely to lose the case.
Mazen Odeh, a 29-year-old resident of the
Silwan neighborhood in East Jerusalem and one of the petitioners in the
case, said he had little hope in the court ruling in favor of the
Palestinians. In June 2010 Odeh was shot in the leg by guards protecting
the Jewish compound of Beit Yonatan in Silwan. Never questioned by
police, Odeh was nevertheless recognized by the National Insurance
Institute as a terror victim.“The court is biased toward the settlers and
their guards,” Odeh told The Times of Israel. “The state and the court
are effectively telling the settlers: ‘Kill Arabs and we are with you,
we will acquit you.”
