Interior Ministry plan will protect urban natural areas
Haaretz, December 21, 2006
By Zafrir Rinat
In the coming days, the large field south of the Glilot intersection will become covered in a thick blanket of daffodils. It is a small piece of nature that has survived in the heart of an urban area, and contains many additional species of plants, as well as wild animals such as hares, which have become rare in other areas due to large-scale hunting. Thanks to two environmental activists, at least a part of the field may gain protected status in the future.
The Interior Ministry Tel Aviv District's Planning Office announced several weeks ago that it intends to prepare a comprehensive plan for urban natural areas that will be integrated into the district master plan. This is the first initiative of its kind and scope in Israel, and is being advanced by Interior Ministry and Environmental Protection Ministry planners Nili Yugev and Naomi Angel.
The comprehensive plan might very well not have come about had it not been for the efforts of Green Party member Dror Ezra and Ramat Hasharon environmental activist Amit Mendelson. The two repeatedly told various planning committees that the new Tel Aviv District master plan does not protect urban natural areas. Some of the sites were designated for construction and others were absorbed by parks, where grass and trails are preferred to natural fields, winter pools and sand dunes. In recent years Mendelson independently mapped all urban natural areas in the Tel Aviv District, telling the district committee, among other things, that the district is home to 11 rare species of wild plants. He also relied on environmental experts such as Tel Aviv University Professor Avital Gazit, who wrote an opinion paper calling for the preservation of a winter pool that is in an area that is designated to become a park in Herzliya. Gazit said the unique variety of life in the pool is in danger of becoming extinct.
"The pool's value will only increase in the future due to the diminishing number of similar habitats in Israel," wrote Gazit. If it is not adequately preserved, said Gazit, "some of the natural elements ... such as water fowl, will disappear." Plant researcher Dr. Uzi Golan also has discovered several rare wild plant species in the pool.
The Interior Ministry's planning office in Tel Aviv decided to formulate the comprehensive plan for urban nature due to Mendelson and Ezra's petition against the the district master plan. The comprehensive plan published by Yugev and Angel calls for a thorough identification of natural sites, views, and heritage, which will include mapping of habitats and rare and unique species that characterized the region and thus should be protected. Specific instructions for preserving urban natural areas will be formulated on the basis of the maps.
Mendelson and Ezra have already noted several sites in the Tel Aviv District that potentially could be designated as urban natural areas, including the Herzliya and Glilot sites, as well as the natural sands in Holon and a sycamore grove north of Zahala.
The new Tel Aviv District comprehensive plan follows in the footsteps of the Jerusalem Municipality, which has already recognized urban natural areas in its master plan. The Jerusalem plan, which is currently being approved, recognizes five urban natural areas in the capital and gives explicit instructions on how to preserve them.
Large cities throughout the world have already recognized the importance of preserving urban natural areas. There are over 100 such sites in London, for example, and urban natural areas have been designated in New York and Barcelona as well.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Stripping individuals of their basic rights
Moving on to the next scandal...
Haaretz, December 20, 2006
By Uzi Benziman
A month ago, Haaretz ran a sensational story on its front page: Reporter Nadav Shragai gave a detailed description of the findings of a Peace Now report, which said that close to 40 percent of the land under the control of West Bank settlements is privately owned by Palestinians. The report was based on an official state database that Peace Now leaked.
Haaretz was the only Israeli media outlet that adequately covered the report. The Maariv daily gave a synopsis of the report on page six; Israel Radio announced it in its midday broadcast; and it stayed on various electronic news sites for about a day. The remaining media outlets, including Yedioth Ahronoth, the television stations and Army Radio, completely ignored it.
The media was not alone in underplaying the findings of the report and avoiding its implications (except for Haaretz, which ran follow-up analyses by Shragai, Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff). The key subjects of the report also adopted a tactic of minimizing it: No official government response was issued, the Civil Administration put out a statement saying, among other things, that "an initial review of the report shows that it suffers from serious inaccuracies," and the Yesha Council of settlements claimed that there was nothing new in the report and that Peace Now would use any means to fight Jewish settlement.
In contrast to the low-profile response to the report offered by the state and the Israeli media, it received a great deal of attention abroad: The New York Times published it as its lead story, and other large newspapers followed suit; and the report's authors, Dror Etkes and Hagit Ofran, were interviewed by dozens of radio and television stations throughout the world. Etkes and Ofran estimate that their findings were covered by hundreds of media outlets. Etkes was also interviewed by Israel Radio – along with Benny Kashriel, mayor of the Ma'aleh Adumim settlement – but only as a result of a report by the station's Washington correspondent, Yaron Dekel, about the buzz that the findings had produced in the United States.
What is more interesting than the extent of the coverage that the report received in Israel is the impression it left on Israeli public opinion: A day after the modest announcement of its findings, the report disappeared entirely from public discourse, except for one more announcement by the Yesha Council challenging its reliability. The parties on the left did not address it, the Knesset did not deliberate it, the press did not deal with it, the government ignored it, and the justice, defense and prime ministers were not asked to explain the findings that it exposed.
What the Peace Now researchers found is that state organs stole private lands from Palestinians living in the West Bank. The report found that state bodies broke the law, ignored Supreme Court decisions and behaved dishonestly, and certainly unethically. Peace Now claimed that 130 settlements were established, fully or partially, on private lands. Note: These are properties that the state recognized as private land, not private properties that were declared to be state land. This involved the systematic and blatant violation by state agencies of the property rights of thousands of Palestinians. This is the same repugnant, underhanded and apparently criminal modus operandi that attorney Talia Sasson detailed in the report she wrote on the establishment of the illegal outposts.
Israel's conscience is entirely black. Scandal follows scandal, and today's injustice wipes away yesterday's injustice in our consciousness. Israeli society's heart is so hard when it comes to Palestinians in the territories that it remains unmoved even when confronted with a scene of continuous injustice that strips individuals of their property.
The malice, deception and aggression embodied in the way the state took over lands belonging to private individuals, even if they are Palestinians, ought to stir up every honest person, even if he is a settler. This method has nothing to do with the ideological dispute over the establishment of the settlements: The issue at stake is that individuals have been stripped of their basic rights. The settlements could have been set up solely on state land. However, a society that is not shocked by the killing of innocent Palestinians will also not be moved even slightly by the sight of land stolen from any individual Palestinian.
Haaretz, December 20, 2006
By Uzi Benziman
A month ago, Haaretz ran a sensational story on its front page: Reporter Nadav Shragai gave a detailed description of the findings of a Peace Now report, which said that close to 40 percent of the land under the control of West Bank settlements is privately owned by Palestinians. The report was based on an official state database that Peace Now leaked.
Haaretz was the only Israeli media outlet that adequately covered the report. The Maariv daily gave a synopsis of the report on page six; Israel Radio announced it in its midday broadcast; and it stayed on various electronic news sites for about a day. The remaining media outlets, including Yedioth Ahronoth, the television stations and Army Radio, completely ignored it.
The media was not alone in underplaying the findings of the report and avoiding its implications (except for Haaretz, which ran follow-up analyses by Shragai, Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff). The key subjects of the report also adopted a tactic of minimizing it: No official government response was issued, the Civil Administration put out a statement saying, among other things, that "an initial review of the report shows that it suffers from serious inaccuracies," and the Yesha Council of settlements claimed that there was nothing new in the report and that Peace Now would use any means to fight Jewish settlement.
In contrast to the low-profile response to the report offered by the state and the Israeli media, it received a great deal of attention abroad: The New York Times published it as its lead story, and other large newspapers followed suit; and the report's authors, Dror Etkes and Hagit Ofran, were interviewed by dozens of radio and television stations throughout the world. Etkes and Ofran estimate that their findings were covered by hundreds of media outlets. Etkes was also interviewed by Israel Radio – along with Benny Kashriel, mayor of the Ma'aleh Adumim settlement – but only as a result of a report by the station's Washington correspondent, Yaron Dekel, about the buzz that the findings had produced in the United States.
What is more interesting than the extent of the coverage that the report received in Israel is the impression it left on Israeli public opinion: A day after the modest announcement of its findings, the report disappeared entirely from public discourse, except for one more announcement by the Yesha Council challenging its reliability. The parties on the left did not address it, the Knesset did not deliberate it, the press did not deal with it, the government ignored it, and the justice, defense and prime ministers were not asked to explain the findings that it exposed.
What the Peace Now researchers found is that state organs stole private lands from Palestinians living in the West Bank. The report found that state bodies broke the law, ignored Supreme Court decisions and behaved dishonestly, and certainly unethically. Peace Now claimed that 130 settlements were established, fully or partially, on private lands. Note: These are properties that the state recognized as private land, not private properties that were declared to be state land. This involved the systematic and blatant violation by state agencies of the property rights of thousands of Palestinians. This is the same repugnant, underhanded and apparently criminal modus operandi that attorney Talia Sasson detailed in the report she wrote on the establishment of the illegal outposts.
Israel's conscience is entirely black. Scandal follows scandal, and today's injustice wipes away yesterday's injustice in our consciousness. Israeli society's heart is so hard when it comes to Palestinians in the territories that it remains unmoved even when confronted with a scene of continuous injustice that strips individuals of their property.
The malice, deception and aggression embodied in the way the state took over lands belonging to private individuals, even if they are Palestinians, ought to stir up every honest person, even if he is a settler. This method has nothing to do with the ideological dispute over the establishment of the settlements: The issue at stake is that individuals have been stripped of their basic rights. The settlements could have been set up solely on state land. However, a society that is not shocked by the killing of innocent Palestinians will also not be moved even slightly by the sight of land stolen from any individual Palestinian.
Fillibustering, Israeli Legal Style
The Migron disgrace
Haaretz, December 20, 2006
Haaretz Editorial
In response to a petition filed by the Palestinian owners of the property on which the illegal settlement outpost of Migron was established, the State Prosecutor's Office asked the court to delay its deliberations on the case for four to five months, in order to give the state time to submit an "update." The justification offered for this request was that Defense Minister Amir Peretz had ordered the Israel Defense Forces to hold talks with the settler leadership in an effort to reach an agreement on the voluntary evacuation of the illegal outposts "in the near future." If the talks fail to bear fruit, Peretz plans to order the evacuation of Migron within six months.
The outpost of Migron was set up on the sly in May 2001. First, an antenna was set up; then a container, in which a guard lived; and since then, 60 caravans and two permanent homes, housing 43 families, have been erected. In view of the fact that their property was stolen, the owners of the land repeatedly applied to the Civil Administration, seeking its help in getting their property back. The authorities turned a blind eye and the construction and population of Migron went on. Two months ago, the owners of the land filed a petition demanding that the army raze the structures, against which final demolition orders had already been issued.
On May 16, 2006, the defense minister announced that he would allow two weeks for negotiations with the settlers in the illegal outposts on evacuating of their own accord, and if no results were achieved, the IDF would begin evacuating them by force in early November. The defense minister did not keep his word, and the illegal outposts, including Migron, are still standing. Now, Migron - and probably the other illegal outposts as well - has been given a further extension that will last at least "four or five months." In practice, the procrastination could continue endlessly, because the State Prosecutor's Office said in its statement that the timing of the evacuation depends on coordination with the prime minister, the circumstances and various other constraints.
The failure to evacuate the illegal outposts, despite the Talia Sasson report, is an unacceptable scandal. But the case of Migron is especially shameful for the state authorities and the rule of law. The demand to evacuate Migron requires no political justification; the fact that it was built on clearly private land - not lands that were appropriated for various uses by the state, but lands for which documentary proof of private ownership exists - is enough to justify evacuating the trespassers without hesitation or delay. In a law-abiding state, the owners of the land ought to be able to expect the authorities to aid them and restore their property to them. But the government of Israel repeatedly relies on excuses and makes promises that no one believes it intends to keep.
Migron is not the sole illegal outpost built on private land (see the article by Uzi Benziman on this page, which cites Peace Now's findings that 130 settlements were fully or partially set up on private land). But it sticks out due to the cunning and fraud that led to its establishment and the authorities' embarrassing and continued failure to remove it. And it also raises serious doubts about who really rules the territories - the law or the settlers.
Haaretz, December 20, 2006
Haaretz Editorial
In response to a petition filed by the Palestinian owners of the property on which the illegal settlement outpost of Migron was established, the State Prosecutor's Office asked the court to delay its deliberations on the case for four to five months, in order to give the state time to submit an "update." The justification offered for this request was that Defense Minister Amir Peretz had ordered the Israel Defense Forces to hold talks with the settler leadership in an effort to reach an agreement on the voluntary evacuation of the illegal outposts "in the near future." If the talks fail to bear fruit, Peretz plans to order the evacuation of Migron within six months.
The outpost of Migron was set up on the sly in May 2001. First, an antenna was set up; then a container, in which a guard lived; and since then, 60 caravans and two permanent homes, housing 43 families, have been erected. In view of the fact that their property was stolen, the owners of the land repeatedly applied to the Civil Administration, seeking its help in getting their property back. The authorities turned a blind eye and the construction and population of Migron went on. Two months ago, the owners of the land filed a petition demanding that the army raze the structures, against which final demolition orders had already been issued.
On May 16, 2006, the defense minister announced that he would allow two weeks for negotiations with the settlers in the illegal outposts on evacuating of their own accord, and if no results were achieved, the IDF would begin evacuating them by force in early November. The defense minister did not keep his word, and the illegal outposts, including Migron, are still standing. Now, Migron - and probably the other illegal outposts as well - has been given a further extension that will last at least "four or five months." In practice, the procrastination could continue endlessly, because the State Prosecutor's Office said in its statement that the timing of the evacuation depends on coordination with the prime minister, the circumstances and various other constraints.
The failure to evacuate the illegal outposts, despite the Talia Sasson report, is an unacceptable scandal. But the case of Migron is especially shameful for the state authorities and the rule of law. The demand to evacuate Migron requires no political justification; the fact that it was built on clearly private land - not lands that were appropriated for various uses by the state, but lands for which documentary proof of private ownership exists - is enough to justify evacuating the trespassers without hesitation or delay. In a law-abiding state, the owners of the land ought to be able to expect the authorities to aid them and restore their property to them. But the government of Israel repeatedly relies on excuses and makes promises that no one believes it intends to keep.
Migron is not the sole illegal outpost built on private land (see the article by Uzi Benziman on this page, which cites Peace Now's findings that 130 settlements were fully or partially set up on private land). But it sticks out due to the cunning and fraud that led to its establishment and the authorities' embarrassing and continued failure to remove it. And it also raises serious doubts about who really rules the territories - the law or the settlers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)