This is a really interesting article to me, as it appears that the article is making some very false claims from the "government" perspective. For example, the arab was videotaped approving of the transaction, taking the money, and signing the paperwork, and the police and the State Prosecutor's office have both said that the building was legitimately purchased. According to an Arutz7 article of December 26th:
The MK's have asked the state comptroller to look into the matter, as it appears that the state is manufacturing the defense for the arab.
Members of the police and State Prosecutor's office testified before the committee that the building was indeed purchased by the Jewish Community of Hebron, and that the Arab who claims otherwise lied to the police and court.
Asked why the prosecutor's office still demands the Jews living in the Peace House be evicted, Brig.-Gen Yoav Mordechai, the director of the Civil Administration and a representative of the Defense ministry, said that the police and prosecutor's office are following a "State Directive." When asked who issued the directive they answered that it was former Defense Minister Amir Peretz.
MKs on the committee said that such a directive constitutes a political agenda being carried out on the “operational level” rather than the “state level” and is thereby illegitimate.
Just another example of the government taking the side of our enemies.
Jan 8, 2008 21:27 | Updated Jan 9, 2008 6:35
By DAN IZENBERG
Both sides claiming ownership of a disputed building on Hebron's Worshipers' Way lied about the facts, the state informed the High Court of Justice in a brief presented this week.
Nevertheless, the state said, the Palestinian owner of the building was undoubtedly in possession of the property when settlers took it over on March 19, 2007.
The brief was presented in response to a petition by the Tal Construction and Development Company and the Society for the Renewal of the Jewish Community in Hebron against eviction orders issued against the building's occupants.
In its response, the state presented the following arguments in defense of its decision to recognize the takeover by the settlers as a "recent trespass" and help the owner, Faez Rajbi, evict them as quickly as possible:
- There was insufficient evidence to prove that the sale of the building to the Jewish purchasers had been completed. The parties - Rajbi and a Palestinian partner on the one side, and Ayub Jaber, a Palestinian intermediary for the purchasers, on the other - did indeed sign a contract for the sale of the building in return for 460,000 Jordanian dinars. However, the receipts the purchasers showed to police fell "far short" of the property's full price.
- Many documents the alleged Jewish purchasers presented to the police Crimes Investigation Unit were forged. "We are talking about large-scale forgeries of many documents that were supposed to support the petitioners' claims," wrote the state's representative, attorney Gilad Shirman.
- At some point, Rajbi began to renovate the building. The petitioners claimed they had hired him to carry out the renovations. However, they did not provide proof that the work had been conducted after ownership had passed to Jaber. Therefore, the facts indicate that Rajbi was in possession of the building on the day of the takeover.
- The petitioners claimed that the settlers did not use force to take over the building, because they had a key to the door - proof that ownership had passed to them. The state argued that Jaber had purchased a lock and the key in question and used them to chain the gates of the building. However, the army had then broken the chain, and the building was left unprotected when the settlers entered. Therefore, the fact that Jaber had a key to a lock that he had purchased and which was neither needed nor used to enter the building on March 19 was meaningless.
The court is scheduled to hold another hearing on the petition on January 17.