Jewish Agency responds to allegations of misconduct in sale of absorption center

Agency says acted "with the utmost diligence and transparency" in sale of Mevasseret Zion Absorption Center.

By HAYAH GOLDLIST-EICHLER
Absorption center in Mevaseret Zion (photo credit: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS/DR. AVISHAI TEICHER)
Absorption center in Mevaseret Zion
(photo credit: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS/DR. AVISHAI TEICHER)
In response to allegations made by activists, lawyers and MKs on Wednesday regarding the Jewish Agency and the sale process of the Mevaseret Zion Absorption Center by the agency employees’ pension fund, the agency has emphatically stated it has acted “with the utmost diligence and transparency.”
The claims made by those opposed to the sale “deliberately omitted or distorted essential information regarding this case, while some have indulged in insinuations implying wild conspiracy theories,” stated the agency.
The facts, as laid out by the agency in its response, show that in June 2014 the Jerusalem District Court approved an agreement reached by all the parties involved, including the absorption center, according to which the pension fund is entitled to sell the center.
“Throughout the legal proceedings, the Jewish Agency has acted with the utmost diligence and transparency, and has provided the court with ample documentation to sustain the validity of the purchase of the land from the Israel Lands Authority and the subsequent transfer of ownership of the property to the pension fund,” the agency stated.
“The court has approved the agreement, the main purpose of which was to ensure that the olim [new immigrants] will be allowed to live in the center to the full extent of their three-year eligibility period, with the full consent of the olim and their counsel,” continued the statement. “The court has thus validated the measures aimed at preserving the rights of the olim, as well as the ownership rights of the pension fund, which was authorized to proceed with the sale.”
The agency concluded by saying that “the claims we’ve heard either ignored this ruling or have raised questions that had already been clarified in court. One cannot but wonder what ulterior motives these partial positions may be serving.”