Description

Photos:
Members of the ‘Clown Army’ confront Israeli security forces during a solidarity protest in the Palestinian village of Susya, June 22, 2012. (Photo by Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Hundreds of Palestinian, Israeli and international activists march into the Palestinian village of Susya, demanding that Israel not demolish it, Suysa, South Hebron Hills, July 24, 2015. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

A view of the tents that comprise most of Susya, July 24, 2015. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org) Israeli authorities reject 90 percent of Palestinian planning requests, which means that almost all new Palestinian homes in the area are built without permits, putting them at risk of demolition.
_____

by Michael Schaeffer Omer-Man for 972Mag

Up against extraordinarily harsh diplomatic pressure from its closest allies, Israel seems to have found a way to save face without creating too much of a fuss — at least temporarily.

With more or less the entire Western world warning Israel not to demolish the Palestinian village of Susya and forcefully displace its residents, it is no surprise that the Israeli army might be seeking a way to climb down the tree it is stuck on.

So how does one announce that it might not demolish that village which it has been claiming for years has no right to exist? As a first step, you might look for an internal document you discarded years ago, one that argues the residents of Susya do actually own the land from which you want to expel them, and then leak it to the press.

That is exactly what it appears the army is doing. Somebody in the Israeli Defense Ministry leaked such a document to Haaretz over the weekend. The document reportedly says that Susya’s residents own the land they live on, a fact that would make forcefully transferring them elsewhere more difficult.

The U.S. State Department, most European Union foreign ministers, the United Nations and hundreds of activists have all joined a very public campaign to save the impoverished village in recent weeks. It is hard to remember such harsh language from Israel’s closest allies about such a specific policy in recent years.

Speaking at the rally, Palestinian MP Mustafa Barghoutti highlighted the effect that international pressure can have, as evidenced by the case of Susya.

“Combining popular resistance on the ground, international solidarity and boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israeli policies,” Barghoutti said,“is very productive and very effective at this stage.”

The Israeli army document that shows Susya’s residents own their land is not a reversal of policy, but whoever leaked it is trying to guide policy makers down the tree in which they are sitting.

The Israeli government and army will not simply admit they were wrong this whole time. There will be no recognition that Palestinians have a right to settle and live on their own land, be it “state” land or privately owned land. (What Israel calls “state” land belongs to the nascent State of Palestine, not to Israel.)

The state will not grant building permits or provide electricity and water either Susya or the dozens of other Palestinian villages in the South Hebron Hills and Jordan Valley facing demolition and forced displacement. But now that it has a technical reason to not demolish Susya, Israel can at least justify putting off doing so until the High Court of Justice rules on the matter.

Two months ago a High Court justice, who happens to be a West Bank settler himself, refused to issue an injunction against the demolition while Susya’s case is pending in Israel’s top court.

Susya’s residents were told the demolitions would take place after the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, and military bulldozers have been parked outside of the village for some weeks now.

A second dispossession?

The Israeli army first demolished the village of Khirbet Susya, deep in the desolate south Hebron Hills, three decades ago, on the grounds that it was located on an archeological site. Susya’s residents, many of whom lived in caves on the site for generations, packed up and moved a few hundred meters away, onto their adjacent agricultural lands.

The IDF, which as the occupying power controls nearly every aspect of Palestinians’ lives in the West Bank, never recognized the validity of the move. To this day, the village has no connections to electricity or running water, and its access roads are not paved.

On the other hand, when it comes to unauthorized Jewish settlements, all of which squat on Palestinian land, Israeli authorities supply electricity, water, security and more. The terms “double standard” or “discrimination” don’t even begin to describe the dual realities in that part the West Bank.

The Israeli army has issued repeated demolition orders against the village on the grounds that none of its tents and tin shacks were erected with the proper permits. The army’s Civil Administration, however, rejects 90 percent of Palestinian planning requests.

The army has made no attempt to find a legal solution that would allow Susya’s residents to stay on their land. It intends to transfer them to the nearby city of Yatta, which is in Area A – under Palestinian Authority rule. Susya is in Area C.

Twenty years ago, on an explicitly temporary and transitional basis, the Oslo Accords divided the West Bank into three “Areas”: A, B and C. Area C, which comprises over 60 percent of the West Bank, is under full Israeli control. A significant portion of the current Israeli government has explicitly stated its desire to annex this area to Israel, in contravention of international law.

In such a scenario, Israel would want to annex as much land as possible with as few Palestinians as possible – hence, efforts and plans to transfer and dispossess Bedouin and Palestinian residents of the south Hebron Hills and Jordan Valley.

Last month every single EU head of mission went to the village on a solidarity visit. Last week, a State Department spokesperson warned Israel that following through with its plans would be a “provocation” and that it would “set a damaging standard for displacement and land confiscation, particularly given settlement-related activity in the area.”

This past weekend, over 500 Palestinian, Israeli and international activists descended upon the South Hebron Hills hamlet to protest plans to demolish it.
____

Defense Ministry internal report: Land at village slated for demolition privately owned by Palestinians

Civil Administration report obtained by Haaretz cites Ottoman deed, may halt planned demolitions in West Bank village of Sussia.

By Barak Ravid and Chaim Levinson for Haaretz

Sussia, the Palestinian village in which structures are slated for demolition, sits on private Palestinian land owned by local people, according to a document of the Defense Ministry’s Civil Administration obtained by Haaretz.

Despite the findings by Civil Administration officer Moshe Meiri, Sussia residents still need building permits in order to prevent the planned demolition. Meiri’s report, however, appears to counter the reasoning that building permits cannot be issued to the local people because of a lack of ownership papers.

It appears that the Sussia residents cannot be forced to leave Sussia because the village is built on private land. Even if structures there are demolished, village residents could use the land for agricultural purposes.

The Palestinians could build structures under the master expansion plan that allows for basic structures for agriculture. Structures currently on the ground could be altered to fit this plan.

The internal document was drawn up following an inquiry by the Jabor family, which bases a claim to land near Sussia on Ottoman documents from 1881. In recent years, the Civil Administration has demolished Jabor-family tents and trees a number of times.

The family filed an appeal with the help of attorney Jad Nasser and claimed ownership of the land.

According to Meiri, a Civil Administration officer responsible for land administration in the West Bank, the Ottoman deed is indeed valid. The same type of deed has also been mentioned by the State Prosecutor’s Office, which has ruled on the borders of various settlements.

The deed was problematic because the boundaries mentioned were unclear, described in terms of geographic features that turned out hard to identify on the ground. But Meiri managed to locate them and found that they indeed included land belonging to the Jabor family, as well as to the Nawaja family.

At the end of ruling, Meiri wrote that the orders issued to the Jabor family should be canceled and that previous court rulings on Sussia should be discussed. Meiri’s ruling came as a surprise to the Civil Administration, especially the head of the Coordinator for Government Activities in the Territories, who had personally intervened in the Sussia matter. The wider ramifications of Meiri’s findings are still being considered.

Sussia is located in the South Hebron Hills near the town of Yatta, which in turn is near Hebron. The village, home to 40 families, does not have a valid master expansion plan, and no building permits have been issued in the area.

Following a petition filed by an organization funded by the right-wing group Amana, the High Court of Justice ruled that the government must demolish the village.

Sussia residents filed a request with the Civil Administration two years ago, asking for building permits, but their request was rejected. Afterwards, they petitioned the High Court to legitimize construction that had already taken place. The hearing on their petition was postponed.

This month, the Civil Administration has said it intends to demolish the illegal structures after the Id al-Fitr holiday that ends Ramadan. The Civil Administration’s announcement led to pressure from both the U.S. government and the European Union in Brussels.

The Americans warned Israel that demolishing the village would have severe ramifications, and the Europeans called for Jerusalem to cancel the “transfer” of Sussia residents. The Civil Administration ultimately backed down from its intention to carry out the demolition after Id al-Fitr.

Sussia residents claim ownership over the lands on which their village sits and have already presented deeds dating to the Ottoman period that cover an area of 3,000 dunams (741 acres). The Civil Administration has so far denied their claims.

In October 2013, for example, when the Civil Administration rejected a master expansion plan put forward by the residents, one explanation was that sufficient ownership documents had not been submitted.

Architect Daniel Halimi, the head of the Civil Administration’s supreme planning council, said the information “is clear — in most cases there are no ownership documents, and in some cases there is only partial proof of ownership.”

Halimi said the ownership documents submitted then did not contain any geographic information and that it was “not possible to make unambiguous claims of ownership over the land in question” based on the documents.

Also, the planning council said it could not legitimize structures already built because the local people did not have sufficient funds for infrastructure or education, and that it would be preferable for them to move to nearby Yatta.