Former Israeli AG: We should have evicted Hebron settlers

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

http://972mag.com/former-israeli-ag-we-should-have-evicted-hebron-settlers/88859/

In an interview, former Israeli attorney general Michael Ben-Yair says he considers the situation in Hebron a form of Apartheid, refers to ‘Price Tag’ attacks as Jewish terrorism and regrets consenting to the construction of West Bank bypass roads for settlers.


About a month ago, I met with Michael Ben-Yair for an in-depth interview offering him a chance to share his thoughts on issues of highest national importance. Ben-Yair is best known to the public as a former attorney general who served in that position under Rabin’s second government. He is also a member of Yesh Din’s Public Council. The following text is a record of our conversation, with some unavoidable omissions.
---
In the aftermath of the Goldstein massacre, there were two important steps I believe should have been taken: one which should have been taken but never was; and another that was, but was eventually only loosely implemented. Let’s start with the thing that wasn’t done: The Jewish settlers in Hebron were not removed following the massacre.
---
Apartheid refers to segregation in the sense of one law for some people and another law for others. So if Muslims are not allowed to walk along a road and Jews are, then that’s truly Apartheid. There’s no way around it, and it’s a real pity that this situation was created.

Yes, you read it correctly. An Israeli admits to apartheid by other Israelis.

And some are now doing everything in their power to attempt to delegitimize that Palestinians are a people. The same kooks of that diseased mindset also want to evict Israelis to the Palestinian territories...or what is left of it.

Apartheid, ethnic cleansing, delegitimization.

[Israeli]

1. Freedom of incitement....

" I strongly regret the very liberal interpretation of freedom of expression during the period before the assassination of Rabin. I think we acted in an extremely liberal manner and argued that the statements made during the demonstrations against Rabin fell within the limits of free speech. We recognized that the statements were outrageous and annoying, but we did not feel they required criminal sanctions.

Today I believe that there is a distinction between freedom of expression and freedom of incitement. There was certainly incredible incitement at the time, and there must be limits. When expression falls into the category of racism or grave injury to the foundations of democracy – not the expression of a political opinion, but an attack on democratic foundations – then democracy must defend itself. We should have reacted much more strongly, and I very much regret this. For me, the assassination of Rabin goes beyond its political meaning. First and foremost, it was an extreme attack on the essential foundations of Israeli democracy, and in this respect I think we were a bit too liberal. "

" We should have " ....yeah ...we should have but we didnt .

Should of , could of .....too late ....

[King_David]

3. They should evict them now nt

[Jefferson23]

2. Is there anything that you regret?

Yes – two main things. At some point the OC Central Command told me that they wanted to create security components around the settlements, including by-pass roads. What is a “security component?” It’s a fence around the settlement with a kind of road three meters inside the fence. I said, “OK, so what do you want?” He replied that they wanted this fence to be situated 50 meters from the outermost house in the settlement, in order to prevent shooting attacks. I told him that if the objective was to prevent shooting, a much greater distance would be needed. So then he said it was to prevent attacks with Molotov cocktails. I replied, “So build a higher fence. Do you realize how much land you are confiscating?”

Many of the settlements are situated on privately owned Palestinian land. An additional confiscation for this security strip is a serious disruption – the land will be taken from Palestinian farmland. Even if we claim that this is state land, we are not talking about the State of Israel. I recognize that there are security needs, but we have to apply some kind of discretion and reach a rational compromise between security needs and what the law allows. This is a matter of the right to property, which is a basic right of the landowners – which the settlers are not.

http://972mag.com/former-israeli-ag-we-should-have-evicted-hebron-settlers/88859/

[LeftishBrit]

4. So they should have. And since they didn't. they should evict them now.

[shira]

5. The ugly situation in Hebron is the main reason that dividing Jerusalem will not work.

Last edited Sat Mar 29, 2014, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)

It would just be more of the same.

Who needs more of that shit?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

6. And winning the sidestepping apartheid award goes to...

[shira]

7. Sorry, but I won't discuss w/ defenders of Lebanese apartheid vs. Palestinians. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

8. Of course you won't discuss Apartheid when it comes directly from an Israeli.

Last edited Sun Mar 30, 2014, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)

On edit: I'm surprised you didn't call him an enemy of the Jews or self hating.