This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 TEL AVIV 001084 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/17/2016 
TAGS: PREL PGOV KWBG IS SETTLEMENTS ISRAELI PALESTINIAN AFFAIRS
SUBJECT: POSITIVE RESPONSE FROM THE GOI ON SETTLEMENT 
EXPANSION...  BUT WHAT ABOUT THE BARRIER? 
 
Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Gene A. Cretz for reasons 1.4 (b 
) and (d) 
 
This is a joint Embassy Tel Aviv/Consulate General Jerusalem 
cable. 
 
¶1.  (C) Summary:  Michael Sfard, at attorney working for 
Peace Now on settlement and outposts cases, told econoff that 
the route of the separation barrier around the Modi'in Illit 
settlement bloc raised the eyebrows of human rights NGOs. 
They wondered why the barrier cut through Palestinian lands 
instead of being closer to the built-up settlements.  Bimkom, 
the Planners for Planning Rights NGO, through its research 
discovered plans to expand the settlement bloc in three 
directions, and found that one of the planned expansions, the 
Mattityahu East neighborhood, was illegal because it had not 
gone through the GOI's approval process and was partly on 
private Palestinian land.  When Peace Now discovered ongoing 
construction in late 2005, the NGO filed a petition to stop 
the construction and demolish the buildings, and construction 
was stopped in January 2006.  The GOI has recently announced 
in the High Court that it agrees construction should be 
stopped because the neighborhood is illegal, but the court 
case is not yet finished because there are 30-40 respondents 
to Peace Now's petition, including the GOI, the construction 
companies, and representatives for the couples who have 
already bought living units.  B'tselem, the Israeli human 
rights NGO, views the GOI's response in a favorable light, 
while Palestinian observers are more critical, noting that 
the standards of Israeli law are not the same as 
international law or the road map.  End summary. 
 
-------------------------------- 
Someone Notices That the Barrier 
Is Too Far from the Settlement 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (C) Michael Sfard, an attorney retained by Peace Now to 
prosecute the State for construction of settlements and 
outposts in the West Bank, on February 26 gave econoff a 
brief history of the case against the construction of the 
Mattityahu East neighborhood in the Modi'in Illit settlement 
bloc.  He explained that when the route of the separation 
barrier was first published in the press, many human rights 
organizations wondered why the barrier cut through lands 
belonging to the Palestinian village of Bilin instead of 
running closer to the Modi'in Illit and Qiryat Sefer 
settlements in the bloc.  Bimkom, the Planners for Planning 
Rights NGO, researched the issue and discovered plans to 
expand the bloc in three different directions with the 
neighborhoods of Mattityahu North, Ne'ot Hapisqa, and 
Mattityahu East.  (Note:  These neighborhoods can be seen in 
the B'tselem/Bimkom PowerPoint presentation on the separation 
barrier entitled, "Under the Guise of Security," which 
econoff forwarded electronically to NEA/IPA and INR in 
January.  End note.)  According to Sfard, Bimkom found that 
the city council was planning to build beyond the municipal 
boundaries of the settlements and onto private Palestinian 
land. 
 
------------------------ 
An Illegal Expansion of 
3,000 Units In the Works 
------------------------ 
 
¶3.  (C) Sfard explained that when Bimkom officials looked 
into the Mattityahu East neighborhood itself, they discovered 
that 1,500 units had already been planned in 1999, but were 
never constructed due to the start of the intifada.  Once the 
separation barrier was announced, however, the city planners 
expanded the project to 3,000 units, and presented the 
revised master plan to the Civil Administration.  According 
to Sfard's sources, however, the project was problematic and 
did not have the necessary approvals because it had not been 
filed in a Palestinian newspaper for public review. The GOI 
issued illegal tenders and building permits nevertheless, and 
Peace Now discovered about 750 units under construction in 
late 2005, of which many had been complete and approximately 
500 had already been sold despite the fact that the plan had 
not been approved.  Sfard concluded that the entire process 
was "the Wild, Wild West." 
 
----------------------- 
Peace Now Goes to Court 
to Stop the Project 
----------------------- 
 
¶4.  (C) Sfard filed a petition in December 2005 on behalf of 
Peace Now and the residents of Bilin to stop the illegal 
construction and demolish the buildings, and argued that the 
separation barrier in this case is intended to enable the 
expansion of settlements it the bloc.  (Note:  B'tselem also 
noted in its presentation that this is one example where the 
barrier has been routed taking into consideration future 
settlement expansion.  End note.)  Sfard remarked that in 
hearings in the High Court, the State Attorney's Office (SAO) 
conceded because there was "too much evidence" against it. 
Sfard showed econoff a packet he obtained with correspondence 
between the city council, the architects, and the 
construction companies proving that they knew project was 
illegal.  He said that the case has been complicated, 
however, because there are 30-40 respondents to Peace Now's 
petition, including the GOI, the construction companies, and 
representatives for the couples who have already bought 
living units. 
 
---------------------- 
GOI Admits Illegality, 
Construction Halted 
---------------------- 
 
¶5.  (U) According to Israeli press reports from January 2006, 
the SAO in fact told the High Court that in view of the 
evidence presented at the hearings, it would be checking 
whether it should initiate criminal investigations pertaining 
to the construction of the neighborhood.  The attorney in 
charge of the case agreed that an injunction to stop 
construction was warranted, and Justice Ayala Procaccia 
handed down such an injunction on January 6, 2006.  In late 
January, the GOI went a step further and withdrew the 
building permits, which would have allowed the expansion of 
the neighborhood to the 3,000 units intended in the second 
master plan.  It claimed that the sale of the unauthorized 
units had been halted until the master plan was approved, but 
said that the buildings that have already been built would 
not be demolished, nor would the residents living there be 
evicted. 
 
¶6.  (U) In a hearing this Wednesday, March 15, the SAO said 
that it is opposed to resuming any of the illegal 
construction in Mattityahu East, but that it does not object 
to letting settlers move into buildings that have been 
completed, according to press.  Lawyers representing the 
project developers and construction companies claimed that 
about 200 people are "in a state of profound distress," 
because they purchased apartments but cannot move into them. 
Justices Aharon Barak and Procaccia reportedly told the 
developers that perhaps they should consider reimbursing the 
buyers, which led Israeli reporters to speculate if this is a 
preliminary step in forcing the developers to demolish the 
buildings in the near future. 
 
--------- 
Reactions 
--------- 
 
¶7.  (C) Khaled Elgindy, policy advisor for the PLO's 
Negotiations Support Unit, raised concerns in a conversation 
with ConGen poloff on March 16.  He remarked that the 
standards of international law and the Roadmap are not the 
same as the standards of Israeli law.  He fears that Quartet 
members will become too "enamored" with Israeli law at the 
expense of international law or the Roadmap. 
 
¶8.  (C) Conversely, Risa Zoll of the Israeli human rights NGO 
B'tselem told poloff on March 16 that the GOI's notice to the 
High Court that it will cease building in Mattityahu East is 
a very favorable development.  Even though it is not a 
binding legal precedent, she said that it will likely have an 
effect on future planned settlement expansion.  She opined 
that it is unfortunate that it took so long to bring about 
this result, but added that she is optimistic that the 
halting of construction in Mattityahu East will have an 
impact on other settlements. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶9.  (C) While the SAO's opinion that illegal construction 
should not continue is welcome news, the underlying concern 
in this case is the routing of the separation barrier around 
the Modi'in Illit bloc.  Even if the High Court rules that 
all of the buildings should be demolished, the barrier would 
still place lands from the Palestinian village of Bilin on 
the "Israeli" side.  Palestinians would have a difficult time 
accessing their lands, and the GOI in 3-5 years would likely 
take over the lands under the Absentee Property Law, convert 
them to State land, and transfer them to settlers.  The 
expansion of the Modi'in Illit bloc may still become a 
reality.  End comment. 
 
********************************************* ******************** 
Visit Embassy Tel Aviv's Classified Website: 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/nea/telaviv 
 
You can also access this site through the State Department's 
Classified SIPRNET website. 
********************************************* ******************** 
JONES