Skip to comments.Israel's Junta – IDF Overrules Barak in Sansana
Posted on 02/24/2012 5:47:21 AM PST by Eleutheria5
The IDF Civil Administration on Thursday took the unprecedented step of rejecting a government plan to normalize the status of the Sansana community in the South Hebron Hills.
In Israel, as in other democracies, military officials are beholden to policy decisions made by civilian officials and are expected to implement their directives in good faith.
The Civil Administration decision that "there is no justification for a new settlement, as [new homes] can be constructed within an existing settlement" comes 12 years after Sansana was established.
In 1997 a Nahal outpost was established at Sansana, but the first homes were not built until 1999. In 2000, the first families moved to Sansana, which currently has 60 families.
In 2009 Defense Minister Ehud Barak approved a plan to for 440 housing units at the Sansana site, including retroactively approving some that already existed.
However, to avoid violating a promise to Washington not to build "new settlements" the plan was presented as "an extension of nearby Eshkolot."
Now, three years after Barak approved the plan, officials in the Civil Administration are overruling their boss, who represents Israel's civilian authority.
Civil Administration planning committee chairman Shlomo Moskowitz wrote "There is no need to 'expand' Eshkolot," arguing there was "plenty of room" for new housing within the communities existing boundaries.
He noted Eshkalot is slated for 347 housing units, of which only 70 have been built. He also argued that Sansana is 7km from Eshkolot and that there was "no justification" not to build in Eshkolot itself.
Most shockingly, he wrote that the IDF Civil Administration planning committee is the only body that can approve building plans in Judea and Samaria, and "does not take dictates from the government."
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
Your take is as unclear as the story itself. How is a Civilian board indicative of the military? From what I can understand of the article, the board said authority for a new section of housing was unnecessary since new housing could be built in the existing area.
The headline and the article use the word junta which usually only refers to a board or committee ( when military is added then we connote things like Banana republics)
The word junta is used in the piece as a value judgement by the ‘journalist’ to indicate that they personally don’t like the action they are ‘reporting’ on.
Civil Administration IS military; they are an office in the IDF that administers the “territories”. And they’ve just refused to obey the dictates of the Ministry of Defense, which is civilian.
“The IDF Civil Administration on Thursday took the unprecedented step of rejecting a government plan...”
There. Did you read the opening line of the article THIS time? Military does not overrule civilian government. Not in the US. Not in the UK. Not in Israel, either, or any other democracy. That’s more than a “value judgment.” It’s basic.
Thanks for the clarification...I am easily confused by bureaucratic titles....
I think it’s meant to be confusing.
It does if that is where the legal responsibility for zoning decisions is vested.
But it’s not. Ministry of Defense tells the IDF to jump, they can only ask “how high”.