Migron outpost 370.
The state on Sunday requested a one-day extension, until 4 p.m. Monday, for
filing its position regarding the Migron controversy with the High Court of
The request for an extension said that the state had only
received all of the information it needed to finalize its legal brief on Sunday
and that it needed an additional day to incorporate the new material into its
It is anticipated that the state will seek a 90-day delay for
removing the Migron buildings, while still demanding that the residents leave by
Previously, the High Court ordered the state to remove the
buildings, holding that that they were built without permits what the state has
classified as private Palestinian land.
Migron residents initially said
they had purchased some of the lots and that other portions of the outpost could
be reclassified as abandoned property. The court did not uphold those
In July, Migron residents petitioned the court against the
evacuation, claiming they had repurchased a portion of the outpost on which the
homes are located.
Initially, the state told the court that there was no
reason to remove those homes if the court upheld the repurchase
But the Ministerial Settlements Committee amended that response
earlier this month, after Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein found its initial
stance to be legally problematic.
According to a source in the
committee’s meeting, the purchase claim involves three tracts of land, which the
committee has referred as sections 2, 10, 23.
Section 2 is completely
surrounded by Palestinian property and can only be accessed through that
property. In section 23, settlers were only able to buy 25 percent of the
The committee therefore decided not to ask the court to amend
its rulings regarding either tract of land. With respect to the third tract,
section 10, however, it agreed to ask the court for a 90-day
Migron spokesman Itai Chemo said in response to the decision by
the Ministerial Settlements Committee that it was clear that the land had been
purchased. He said the actions of the State Attorney’s Office in pushing to
destroy the outpost stemmed not from the pursuit of justice, but from a “lust
for destruction.”Tovah Lazaroff contributed to this report.
Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin