US embassy cable - 04TELAVIV1391

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 TEL AVIV 001391 
 
SIPDIS 
 
NEA FOR BURNS/SATTERFIELD 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/05/2014 
TAGS: PBTS, KPAL, KWBG, IS, SETTLEMENTS, ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN AFFAIRS 
SUBJECT: FAST-TRACK OUTPOST REMOVAL LESS THAN ADVERTISED 
 
REF: A. TEL AVIV 0028 
 
     B. TEL AVIV 0317 
     C. TEL AVIV 1019 
     D. 03 TEL AVIV 3253 
     E. 03 TEL AVIV 5697 
     F. 03 TEL AVIV 7358 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Daniel C. Kurzter for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) 
. 
 
1.  (C) Summary and comment:  The long-promised GOI removal 
of outposts established after March 2001 suffered another 
setback on March 4 when the Israeli High Court of Justice 
postponed the evacuation of six illegal outposts in the West 
Bank for an additional ten days.  The court will hear the 
settler's appeal arguing that the verdict gave the IDF too 
much judicial authority.  Anticipating this result, the IDF's 
Advocate General's Office had told econoff on March 3 that 
the settlers would appeal the High Court's decision the 
following day and the IDF did not expect to be able to move 
on the outposts anytime soon.  The new political/security 
grounds were intended to cut down the legal process to about 
two weeks, but even this new process has now extended into 
its third month.  The practical effect of all of these legal 
processes is that no outposts have been removed since 
December.  Meanwhile, they are growing in size, with the 
assistance and funding of the GOI (reftel A).  End summary 
and comment. 
 
---------- 
Background 
---------- 
 
2.  (C) Prime Minister Sharon decided in December 2003 to 
abandon the practice of challenging the establishment of 
illegal outposts on the grounds that they were established 
outside of the proper zoning and building laws.  The legal 
wrangling over building and zoning permits was having the 
effect of dragging out the process to a point that rendered 
the GOI's efforts to remove outposts ineffective. 
Accordingly, in December, the PM and the Minister of Defense 
ordered the removal of several outposts based on security and 
political reasons.  At various times, we have been assured 
that the streamlined procedure would take no more than 10-20 
days, including all court appeals. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
Outpost Removal Suffers Another Setback 
--------------------------------------- 
 
3.  (C) The High Court of Justice ruled on March 4, that the 
IDF has the specific authority to remove the Hazon David 
outpost near the settlement of Kiryat Arba and the Tal 
Binyamin outpost near the settlement of Ofra.  The ruling 
also would have provided the legal basis for acting against 
at least four other outposts that were ordered evacuated in 
December 2003.  (Note:  The other four outposts are: Havat 
Maon near the settlement of Maon; Bet Iyen West in Gush 
Etzion; Ginot Aryeh near the settlement of Ofra; and Havat 
Shaked near Yizhar.  End note.)  Immediately following the 
High Court's ruling, however, the settlers filed an appeal 
claiming that the ruling would give the government, in 
general and the IDF specifically, sweeping judicial authority 
that could have ramifications beyond outpost removal, to 
include the evacuation of settlements.  The High Court agreed 
to consider the appeal and Supreme Court Justice Mishael 
Chesin ordered the IDF to delay removal of these outposts for 
ten days. 
 
4.  (C) The Head of the IDF's Advocate General's Corp 
Infrastructure Section, Osnat Davidson, had told Embassy 
econoff on March 3, that her office was expecting both a 
favorable opinion for the government on the next day and an 
appeal filing by the outpost petitioners.  Davidson said she 
was not optimistic about the possibility of the IDF resuming 
outpost removals in the near future.  Davidson agreed with 
econoff's comment that the PM's "fast-track" approach 
appeared to face as many legal hurdles as the old building 
code approach (reftel F).  Davidson agreed, saying that the 
settlers could "drag this process out indefinitely." 
Davidson insisted, on the other hand, that court precedents 
set now could make future IDF action less litigious.  For 
example, Davidson said, the court rejected the settlers' 
claim that their illegal construction activities are being 
focused on in a discriminatory fashion.  This will hopefully, 
she said, not be an issue in future removals. 
 
********************************************* ******************** 
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. 
********************************************* ******************** 
KURTZER