[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 28, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E474-E475]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      THE SUPREME COURT OF ISRAEL AGAIN DEMONSTRATES ITS INTEGRITY

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 28, 2012

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important 
examples Israel gives to the world is how an independent judiciary, 
committed to the rule of law, can act even in a nation in which 
security considerations are paramount--as they have had to be in Israel 
since 1948, when it was attacked at the very moment of its birth.
  Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of Israel issued a ruling that 
Migron, an illegal settlement established in the West Bank, must be 
dismantled and the occupants removed. While it is clear that some of 
the areas that are now reserved for Jewish citizens of Israel should 
remain in place after a two-state peace agreement is signed, these are 
the areas immediately adjacent to Israel, especially in and around 
Jerusalem. Those settlements far from that area should never have been 
allowed to

[[Page E475]]

be established, and they should now be removed. Those of us who believe 
strongly in Israel's right to a continued existence as a secure, 
democratic, independent state have a particular responsibility to point 
out that those who create and defend these settlements may undermine 
the chances of achieving such a result.
  There are strong public policy reasons for objecting to these 
unauthorized, illegal settlements, as we learned when the Obama 
administration was so successful in blocking a U.N. vote to recognize 
Palestinian statehood. The defeat of that effort, led by the Obama 
administration's aggressive diplomacy, was a far better result for 
Israel in the U.N. than we have seen in many years. And it is clear 
that it was because President Obama has expressed his disagreement with 
the existence of many of these settlements that he had the credibility 
to achieve that diplomatic victory.
  But the Supreme Court of Israel is not motivated by these political 
considerations. Rather it is committed to the rule of law--a strong 
distinction between Israel and most of its neighbors. Given the 
pressures that are brought to bear against the Judiciary in the name of 
security, a phenomenom we have seen in our own country at various 
times, the decision by the Israeli Supreme Court to order the 
dismantlement of an illegal settlement deserves praise and it is 
important that the Netanyahu administration carry out this court order. 
It would be a gift to critics of Israel if there were to be any 
faltering in the Israeli Government's standing behind this decision of 
its Supreme Court.
  Mr. Speaker, the New York Times, in an editorial on March 28, noted 
this, and because the example of a Supreme Court, in a nation that is 
engaged in a serious effort to protect itself against external enemies, 
is standing up for the rule of law in the face of pressures to the 
contrary is so important, I ask that the editorial from the New York 
Times, entitled ``Israel's Top Court vs. Outposts'' be printed here.

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 25, 2012]

          Israel's Top Court Orders Settlers to Leave Outpost

                           (By Ethan Bronner)

       Jerusalem.--Israel's Supreme Court on Sunday ordered a West 
     Bank settlers' outpost built on private Palestinian land to 
     be dismantled by Aug. 1, rejecting a government compromise 
     with the settlers that would have allowed them to stay put 
     for another three years.
       The decision was much anticipated, because the panel of 
     three judges who decided the case included the court's 
     conservative new chief justice, Asher Grunis, and because the 
     case involved the politically explosive issue of moving 
     settlers in the face of potentially violent resistance.
       Whether the government will remove the 50 families living 
     in the outpost before the deadline will also be closely 
     monitored.
       In their ruling, the judges chided the government for 
     having failed to evacuate the outpost in accordance with an 
     earlier high court decision.
       ``This is a necessary component of the rule of law to which 
     all are subject as part of Israel's values as a Jewish and 
     democratic state,'' the decision said.
       The case concerns Migron, a settler outpost near the West 
     Bank city of Ramallah. Migron is one of the largest of dozens 
     of small enclaves that have a different status under Israeli 
     law than the 120 full-blown settlements in the West Bank.
       Although the larger settlements, home to about 330,000 
     Israeli Jews, are considered in violation of international 
     law by a vast majority of foreign governments, Israel views 
     them as legitimate; not so for the smaller outposts, which 
     Israel views as illegal because they went up without its 
     authorization. Despite that status, most of the outposts have 
     been provided with basic infrastructure by the government.
       Nearly a decade ago, Israel promised the United States that 
     it would dismantle a number of the outposts in preparation 
     for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 
     The Palestinians want to build a state on land that is now 
     partly occupied by the settlers. But almost no outposts have 
     actually come down, and Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are 
     frozen.
       Meanwhile, Migron stands out among the outposts because its 
     land is not simply part of a theoretical future state of 
     Palestine but also because it has been shown to belong to 
     private Palestinian owners. The state did not dispute that 
     finding, although the settlers say that no proof of ownership 
     was provided.
       Palestinians represented by an Israeli lawyer took the case 
     to the Supreme Court, along with Peace Now, a left-wing 
     Israeli group that opposes the settlements. The case dragged 
     on for years, but last summer the court said the outpost had 
     to be dismantled by the end of March 2012, a deadline the new 
     ruling extends to Aug. 1.
       The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which 
     is a strong defender of the settlers and wanted to avoid a 
     confrontation, suggested a compromise--let the residents of 
     Migron remain until a new authorized community could be built 
     nearby where they could relocate upon its completion in 2015.
       The plaintiffs returned to the court last week and told the 
     court that to accept such a deal would be to flout the rule 
     of law.
       One of the three justices who heard last week's arguments, 
     Salim Joubran, indicated the court's leanings at the time: 
     ``You say the outpost will move in three years, but I know 
     this type of behavior. Three years will inevitably turn into 
     eight.''
       Right-wing legislators said Sunday that they would 
     introduce legislation to legalize Migron and other outposts. 
     Dani Dayan, a leader of Israel's settler movement, said that 
     the court's ruling would empower the violent extremists in 
     his community who have long argued that there was no point in 
     seeking compromise.
       Tzaly Reshef, a founder of Peace Now and a lawyer, said the 
     decision would not change the fact that ``supporters of the 
     settlements remain in power.'' But he called it ``very 
     meaningful in terms of the constitutional system in Israel.''
       Mr. Reshef said that had the case been decided the other 
     way, ``it would have been almost the end of the existence of 
     the courts as the protectors of the rule of law in this 
     country, as well as the ultimate victory of the settlers.''
       He continued, ``The government, threatened with violence if 
     it tries to remove settlers, tried to convince the court that 
     it should pull back from its decision, which is based on the 
     basic right of ownership of private property.''
       The next test, Mr. Reshef said, would be whether the 
     government is ``able to change facts on the ground.''
       Mr. Netanyahu said the government would honor the court's 
     decision and uphold the rule of law.

                          ____________________