Why There Is Hope for Israel Yet

NY Times: “Israel Revokes Decision on East Jerusalem Land,” by GREG MYRE.

For all the screwed up things that the Sharon government does – many, sadly, with the approval of large sectors of Israeli public – it is, in fact, a society that has SOME sense of reality …

For the last several years, that tendency has been regrettably absent, to the detriment of both Israel itself and the Palestinians ... but it has not – thankfully – disappeared ...

And it is more crucial than ever, now that Arafat’s death has removed excuses among both Israelis and Palestinians, that the humane and realistic side of Israel come to the fore …

This is not going to be easy, of course, given the extent to which American society has gone off the rails – one destructive result of which has been the utterly toxic combination of Bush and Sharon, whose mutual self-delusion –

and here we don’t speak of them as individuals, but, rather as political actors who represent major sectors of the societies they rule –

has been DISASTROUS for any hopes of real moving forward in the Israel/Palestine encounter.

Nevertheless, the fact that this dangerous policy was rescinded, once it became publicly known, DOES say something important about a redemptive quality in Israeli society that may yet be mobilized in a positive way to deal with the Palestinians …

Below, major quotes from the story … please note that the Israeli minister involved in promoting this disgusting subterfuge is none other than George Bush’s favorite new “philosopher” Natan Sharansky …

Really says something about the toxicity of certain aspects of the Bush/Sharon connection – and all it represents about the negative aspects of the US/Israeli relationship …

Israel’s attorney general on Tuesday ordered Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government not to carry out a policy decision permitting the seizure of East Jerusalem property owned by Palestinians living in the West Bank.

The attorney general, Menachem Mazuz, called the government’s policy legally indefensible and also cited political considerations in his ruling. “This decision cannot stand,” Mr. Mazuz said in a lengthy statement. He cited “many legal difficulties,” including “Israel’s obligations according to the rules of customary international law.”

If the government confiscated such land, it could inflame passions on one of the most volatile issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the status of Jerusalem, which both sides claim as a capital.

Last summer the government quietly approved a measure saying it could take control of Palestinian-owned land in East Jerusalem that fell under the 1950 Absentee Property Law. Previous Israeli governments generally declined to invoke the law to seize Palestinian property in East Jerusalem, which Israel captured in the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 and then annexed.

Palestinians and human rights groups charged that the government decision was closely connected to the building of Israel's separation barrier, which has drawn strong international criticism. Mr. Mazuz also noted a link.

The government’s decision “could also have serious international repercussions regarding the separation fence,” he said. “The clear interest of the state of Israel is to prevent opening new fronts in the international arena in general and in the area of international law in particular.”

The Israeli government did not comment on the ruling.

Daniel Seidemann, an Israeli lawyer representing Palestinian landowners threatened with the loss of their property, said, “The attorney general acted promptly and wisely and spared us from a disastrous situation.” …

The government’s decision on East Jerusalem was initiated by Natan Sharansky, the minister of Jerusalem affairs, at a session of his committee on June 22 that was attended by just one other minister, Mr. Mazuz noted.

The two ministers approved the resolution despite objections by two Justice Ministry officials who were also at the meeting, Mr. Mazuz wrote. The resolution then received cabinet approval on July 8, but did not become public until the newspaper Haaretz reported the story two weeks ago. ...

Mr. Mazuz said Mr. Sharansky had exceeded his authority by issuing a new interpretation of a law that has been addressed in detail over several decades by Israeli legal authorities. The attorney general said he had only recently become aware of the government decision after his office had begun receiving complaints. ...

Over the years, the Absentee Property Law has spawned the bizarre phrase “present absentees,” which Mr. Mazuz included in his decision.

To take their property would be an “especially harsh result, because applying the law meant negating their property without compensation,” he wrote.