A defense adviser emphasized that the land on which Ulpana was built was captured for military purposes, and that residents knew that when they built homes there. "What are citizens doing on land [captured] for military needs?" he asked.
How dumb can he be?
First of all, that issue was settled in 1979 for Bet El and later restricted at Elon Moreh.
But I think David Kirshenbaum's obervations are critical:
The High Court’s response to petitions brought by left-wing NGOs against
Jewishcommunities in Judea and Samaria is a case in point. All these communities were built on land that was barren and uncultivated prior to the Six Day War. Assertion of conflicting prior ownerships was brought forth by the NGOs only after Jews started moving into the area. Any actual ownership interest, proofof which was never presented, would have arisen from the transferor outright grantof the property by a monarch, KingHussein of Jordan, whose sovereignty over the area was never recognized by Israel or by 99% of the other members of the UN....[and] Since under Jordanian law, sale of property to an Israeli is a capital crime, the notion of Jordan ever giving recognition in its courts to the property laws of the State of Israel is sadly laughable.
Even if all these issues were set aside and an Israeli court was willing to provide a hearing to petitioners who came forward after more than 45 years and asserted claims based on Jordanian law, a fundamental requirement of the rule of law would be to determine the question of ownership prior to destruction of property. This has yet to be done.
Thus, not only does the government
have no obligationto destroy homes in Bet El and Migron, it has no right to do so. And now that the government has realized that its initial commitment to do so was wrong, it is preposterous to argue that the Supreme Court can order compliance with a government undertaking that had no legalor moral basis in the first place.
Finally, in cases like these, where value was paid for property and the purchasers had no reason to believe, especially given government involvement and encouragement in the project, that there was any defect in title, legal doctrine widely recognized for centuries in Western legal systems would result in payment of compensation to a prior existing owner, rather than eviction. Destruction of property would be out of the question.
After all, how would that
helpthe original owner, especially, as in this case, where he could not take over the property? But what drives the NGO petitioners is not justice, but rather the goal of uprooting Jews from Judea and Samaria. The granting and championing of a court order to destroy Jewish homes, even without a hearing on the merits, indicates not a genuine interest in executing justice, but rather an interest in appearing just. And what better way to do so than to side with petitioners who are Palestinians, especially if it’s at the expense of residents who are “Settlers”? The hypocrisy of the Supreme Court decisions in the Bet El and Migron cases is evident from a comparison with its handling of cases involving land seizures by Beduin in the Negev. In those cases, legal determinations were made that Beduin groups simply took over, without any payment, thousands of dunams of state land. Yet no orders of eviction or destruction have been issued by the Supreme Court during decades-long litigation.