1. Building the town of Migron was not the unauthorised decision of a band of people unrelated to government of Israel. In 1999 the government of Israel identified the Migron hilltop area as a strategic place, from security and settling perspective. It was uninhabited at the time. Thus the government decided to establish a community on this very location.
2. In addition, there is not one person who until now has been able to provide official documents of ownership of the land. It has all been hearsay, supported by a radical left wing political group in Israel whose agenda is extremely destructive to the state of Israel and opposed to its name Peace Now. If such documents of ownership to even one plot of land on the Migron hilltop exist, let them be brought forward and the possessors of the document will receive that land or monetary compensation to the value of that land the day that they bring such a document.
3. NO country in the world destroys the homes of its citizens. To do so, is destructive to the national morale and it is both immoral and inhumane. There is no legal precedent for such action according to international laws, nor Israeli law and not even Jordanian laws which have some legal significance in Judea and Samaria. Even according to the Halachah (Jewish code of law) as set out in the Talmud, you pay money for land in good faith and if is discovered that the there is a claim to the land from a neighbour then the neighbour has the right to the field but he will need to compensate the buyers but he does not have the right to harm them. These laws are rather complicated but straightforward in essence if one really things about it. (1) See NOTE below. The residents of Migron built their homes in good faith and made good and honest use of the land and cultivating it, planting and harvesting it.
4. The residents of Migron settled on a rocky hilltop where there was not even one structure, tree or cultivated plot. It was desolate fields which was why the government of Israel chose that area. If it can be proved that there are legitimate owners to the land, then they are liable for compensation for the value of the land, but they can not uproot the settlers of the land who have established in good faith homes and facilities on the barren sites and to throw them out in the wilderness. Such actions as taken by the Supreme Court of Israel is both inhumane and against all Jewish codes of law and goes against even compassionate treatment of any individuals or groups of people and their laws internationally. The government of Israel has an obligation and duty of care to discharge to the residents of Migron as we shall see in point 5.
5. There was and is in place a plan by the Housing Ministry and is submitted by the Ministry of Building for 500 additional housing units for Migron. On the deed submitted to the Housing Ministry, the landowner is the Appointee for the Government and Abandoned Property in Judea and Samaria. It is not private land but government land. Land in this category went all the way to the office of the Prime Minister of Israel who was then Ariel Sharon. Land that was registered to people who had abandoned it over 50 years ago was recognised as Absentee Land and the Absentee Land in Judea and Samaria now government property and land on which Jews can be permitted to settle. If this was truly someone else’s land, why was no claim made previous to this time? Thus such a claim to land termed as Abandoned Property in Judea and Samaria, should be seen as fictitious and malicious in intent without real basis. If there is no history of previous claims to the land and no complaints to the courts previously recorded about this land from the supposed owners in fifty years, than indeed there was indeed no real cause for this case to go to court.
6. There is a community on the hilltop of Migron which consists of 50 families with numbers more than 300 persons. They settled there and built their families over the last ten years. Many of the children were born there. They have cultivated the land and built houses and facilities there. What government that is fair and just, mindful of its duty to its citizens does such a act as the uprooting of a community that has improved and settled on land abandoned and not used? What law court, mindful both of natural justice and the international laws of justice, as Jewish Halachic Laws makes such a decision and on what basis is this decision based?
7. The mischief caused by radical organisations such as Peace Now is more than damaging to a few individuals, but damaging to the whole nation of Israel. Indeed the government of Israel must pass legislation to rectify a situation that has already gotten out of hand. Otherwise the whole country of Israel is on a suicide mission of appeasement.
8. The feeling toward the Jewish homeland, Israel, was summed up by Shimon Ha'Chashmonaiof the Maccabees, the brother of Yehuda Ha'Maccabee. Shimon became the Jewish nation's leader after his brother died. Antiochus, sent his message to Shimon saying: "Return to me all the towns that you captured from me in the war, or, I will wage a war against you."
Shimon replied to Antiochus saying: "We did not take foreign land, and we did not assert control over foreign assets, but the land that is our inheritance from our fathers, which, at a time, without justification, was conquered and we, when we had the opportunity, reclaimed our fathers' lands." This reply is posted on the entrance to Migorn. Because we believe in it; we returned to be a nation; we did not invent ourselves; we existed for over 3,500years. We became a nation again in our homeland.
Son-in-law vs. Neighbor for Liquidated Apartment
A rich man became bankrupt and the beis din ordered him to relinquish his home to the creditors. Fortunately, one creditor was his beloved son-in-law and the house was transferred to his possession. The latter allowed his father-in-law to continue living there for free, but just as the older man started to feel more at ease, his adjacent neighbor complained to the beis din that he had been mistreated. After all, he was a bar metzra, and the beis din, as receivers of the property, should have offered to sell it to him first. However, the Chasam Sofer (Responsa, C.M. 11) refuted his claim, stressing that Chazal learnt the halachah of adjacent neighbors from the commandment in Devarim 6:18: do what is upright and good. The owner of a field next to one offered for sale profits from buying it by enlarging his property and should be preferred but not if he thus harms the seller. If, in this case, the beis din sells the home to the neighbor, he would evict the owner, who would become homeless. The house should remain the son-in-laws’s for the previous owner’s sake, who is being allowed to live there, as the neighbor is also commanded to “do what is upright and good”! (See Chasam Sofer, ibid, who cites more reasons as to why the principle of adjacent neighbors does not apply to such cases).