Don't rush to raze homes
Photo: Ido Erez
Don't raze these homes
Hanoch Daum points to absurdity of demands to demolish some so-called illegal outposts
Last week I picked up Yair Wolf, the deputy head of the Gush Etzion Council, and together we traveled to Netiv HaAvot to wait for the arriving members of the Knesset's Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee.
Netiv HaAvot is referred to, for some reason, as an outpost, and possibly even an illegal outpost. Yet almost all the flaws inherent in this term are reflected in this neighborhood.
I think that Tzachi Hanegbi, the Committee's capable chairman, characterized it better than me during the pleasant conversation that took place at one of the residents' homes (the food was excellent, by the way.) He said that there is no connection between what Committee members saw there and those remote hills overrun by law-breaking youths, where one can find three goats and half a mobile home.
Netiv HaAvot is a neighborhood in Gush Etzion, an area that even Labor's Yuli Tamir characterized during the visit as an area that needs to remain in Israeli territory under any agreement. Yet despite this, the site is defined as an illegal outpost and its status is pending a High Court hearing.
In about a month, the State will have to explain why it refrains from dismantling this outpost. However, as noted, it's not an outpost. It's a neighborhood, with homes, with residents, and with families. One of the homes, by the way, features a special pool where my son learned to swim. The pool was built by a family whose son needed to swim in order to learn how to walk, and today it offers excellent swimming programs.
Absurd and embarrassing
So forget about everything you've known and seen in the media about remote hills in the territories: All residents at Netiv HaAvot are professionals and veterans of combat units. These people are politically moderate, yet because of bureaucracy and foot-dragging they now have to fight so that they homes won't be razed.Personally speaking, I do not automatically object to the removal of outposts or to the evacuation of larger communities. I understand that one day we may have to limit the settlement enterprise to several main blocs. Yet if we look at Netiv HaAvot as a test case, we must admit that the very fact this site is even facing controversy is absurd and quite embarrassing for all parties involved.
Let's assume that a decision is taken to raze the homes at Netiv HaAvot. What then? That is, we are talking about the heart of Gush Etzion, a suburb of Jerusalem, and we are dealing with state-owned land here. This is a site that will remain in Israeli territory after any agreement, even according to the Geneva Accord.
So why raze such beautiful neighborhood? Just because religious people live there? What's the practical interest in destroying it if in any case, in another year, after all formal permits are arranged, these homes will be built again?
