High Court of Justice urges 20 families to withdraw from disputed Hebron building on "Worshipers' Way."
By DAN IZENBERGhebron settler woman 224 88(photo credit: Tovah Lazaroff)
The High Court of Justice made it clear on Wednesday to the 20 families occupying a disputed building on "Worshipers' Way" in Hebron that they would not be allowed to continue living there, and urged them to withdraw a petition filed on their behalf and leave the building voluntarily.
If not, it seems certain the police will forcibly evict them from what they call Beit Hashalom.
A panel of three justices - Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch and Justices Ayala Procaccia and Salim Joubran - gave the petitioners' lawyer, Nadav Ha'etzni, 24 hours to let the court know whether his clients would take its advice.
If the petitioners refuse to withdraw the petition and leave of their own free will, it seems certain, from statements made by the three justices during the hearing, that the court will rule against them, paving the way for and even obliging the police to forcibly evict the settlers from the building that they took over in March 2007.
Underneath a veneer of politeness, there was obvious tension between Ha'etzni and the court throughout the high-stakes hearing. Until Wednesday, the High Court had decided to withhold a decision on the petition and wait for the outcome of a separate hearing, this one in a military appeals court, against the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria's refusal to approve the settlers' takeover of the building. The refusal was based on a military order prohibiting the registration of ownership of the building to the settlers on the grounds that their presence there could interfere with public order and safety.
But hearings in the military court have been going on for more than a year, and it is still not close to ruling on the settlers' appeal.
Beinisch informed the petitioners that she was not willing to wait any longer and that the legal issue in the military court had nothing to do with the legal issue before the High Court.
The High Court petition has to do with civil law. The petitioners have called on the court to reject the state's position that a Palestinian, Saed Rajbi, was in possession of the building when more than two busloads of settlers moved into the building on the night of March 19, 2007. Based on the determination that Rajbi was in possession of the building, the police were empowered to evict the alleged trespassers within 30 days of the illegal occupation.
There is an ownership dispute between the Tal Construction and Development Company-Karnei Shomron and the Nonprofit Organization for the Renewal of the Jewish Yishuv in Hebron on the one hand, and Rajbi on the other.
Rajbi bought the land in 1997 and built the structure over the following decade. The settlers maintain that they bought the building from Rajbi in 2004. After denying that he had sold the building and then being confronted with a video of the signing of the sales contract and his receipt of a down payment from the settlers, Rajbi said he had indeed signed the contract but later changed his mind and returned the money.
But the question of ownership is not the same as the question of who was in possession of the building on the night of March 19, 2007. According to the law governing the eviction of a "fresh trespass," the critical question is who was in possession of the structure at the time of the takeover.
The state and the court agree that Rajbi was in possession. He was in the midst of carrying out renovations in the building when the settlers moved in. The settlers had not been in the building prior to that night. Therefore, there had been no change in the status quo until that moment.
Everyone agrees that the question of ownership is in dispute. The petitioners have said they paid 80 percent of the value of the building, that Rajbi signed a sales contract, that the settlers had continued paying him money over the next year, and that he had renovated the building at their request and been paid for it. The state maintains that many of the documents presented by the settlers to prove their case are forgeries.
But the High Court explained that it was not the correct time to rule on the dispute over ownership, since the procedure would involve hearing witnesses and studying documents and other evidence.
That was a matter for a lower court and, indeed, the petitioners had already applied to the Jerusalem District Court to declare that they were the lawful owners. If the court rules in their favor, the petitioners will be able to occupy the building (unless the military appeals court rejects their appeal on the other legal issue). However, until the ownership dispute is settled in court, the law regarding the eviction of a fresh trespass applies and obliges the occupants to leave voluntarily or the police to evict them, the High Court said.
Ha'etzni tried hard to convince the court that the petitioners had been in possession of the building on the night they took it over. But his arguments repeatedly reverted to the question of who owned the building. Time after time, the justices reminded Ha'etzni that the Jerusalem District Court would rule on that question.
Ha'etzni argued that the settlers had not used force to enter the building. There was no lock on the building on March 19, and the number of settlers who had entered was "fewer than the number of people going to a concert." He also maintained that the police had issued the eviction order 31 days after the takeover, while the law said they could act only within 30 days.
The justices were not convinced by Ha'etzni's arguments. Beinisch told him he should not only consult with his clients about withdrawing the petition and leaving the building voluntarily, but that as their legal adviser, he should tell them the law was not on their side. Ha'etzni asked for and was granted 24 hours to submit his answer in writing.
After the hearing, Orit Struck, spokeswoman for the Jewish community in Hebron, issued a statement condemning the court.
"The High Court once again proved that the settlers are second-class citizens," she wrote. "At the very beginning of the hearing, the justices stated their position and throughout the hearing, they did not let the facts confuse them. The decision which the justices are striving for contradicts all previous judicial decisions and is not aimed at dealing with the issue, but at people - the settlers of Hebron."
if(catID != 151){
var cont = `Take Israel home with the new Jerusalem Post Store
