Susya and the Court

It is important to note that the legal situation of Susya is not about land ownership. The people of Susya, for their part, are not contesting their original expulsion from the original site of the village, around the ancient synagogue. Instead they are looking to be allowed to build permanent structures on the land that they are currently living on, which was in the past the agricultural land of the originally village.

“The ownership is not so much disputed as it’s about the planning,” noted Yariv Mohar, spokesman for Rabbis for Human Rights, in an interview. Regavim’s protests over Susya stem from a denial of the residents’ connection to the land and an “unwillingness to recognize a semi-nomadic lifestyle” of the type that was a main feature of life in the village for most of its history. Regavim did not respond to requests for comment.

Plia Albeck, one of the legal minds behind Israel’s settlement enterprise, found in 1982 that the land that Susya currently is located on does in fact belong to the residents. As such, if the case before the Supreme Court was about who owns the land, it would seem that the residents of Susya would have the upper hand. That is not what is happening; this isn’t as much about the land itself as it is about what’s on it.

As noted before, the first expulsion sent the residents of Old Susya about half a kilometer away to another section of land that they owned and had used for grazing and agriculture. The Israeli settlement of Susya, founded in 1983, continued to grow as the Palestinians lived nearby in caves and jury-rigged shelters. In 1990 the Palestinians were unceremoniously loaded onto trucks and dumped about 15 kilometers north of Susya, after which they came back and began living at a new site. Each family lived on the specific plot of agricultural land that they owned.

The situation continued to deteriorate for Palestinian Susya, as confrontations with settlers increased and became more violent. Yair Har-Sinai, a local settler, was killed in July 2001 while herding sheep, and the blame was immediately cast on the residents of Susya, leading to a third expulsion from the area that was only stopped by an injunction from the Supreme Court that allowed them to return and for the demolitions to cease. The settlement continued to grow, though, and the confrontations did not stop.

Regavim and settlers from Israeli Susya filed their petition demanding the demolition of the structures at Susya in February 2012, noting the lack of permits for construction. In order to get permits, though, a plan has to be approved by the Civil Administration. Advocates for Palestinian Susya argue that the Civil Administration should have been given some sort of housing solution or master plan after the first expulsion, but this has not happened, even after almost 30 years. Residents and legal advocates for Susya have put forward plans of their own, only to see them rejected.

Another plan for Susya was submitted to the Civil Administration in December 2012, only to be rejected months later. The main reason behind their decision was that Susya was too small and too far away from other Palestinian population centers to be able to support itself and did not offer the tools needed for social and economic advancement.

The Oslo Divisions in the West Bank (UN)

If the people of Susya submitted an alternate plan for a location closer to the city of Yatta, which is in Area A, then the Civil Administration may consider giving them state lands to build on. However, as Mohar notes, this causes new problems. There is no guarantee that they will be given new land, and these lands may in fact be under the ownership of other tribes or individuals. With the Supreme Court refusing to halt the latest demolition orders, the residents of Susya may be forced to move into Areas A or B.

The defense of Susya has focused on the residents and their representatives trying to convince the Supreme Court that the Civil Administration has an obligation to legalize their village and approve a master plan due to the past expulsions and demolitions. Their lack of permits is not for a lack of trying, but because of a consistent rejection of their applications.

Until their next hearing, which is scheduled for August, the people of Susya do not have a chance in court to get a stay of execution. The demolitions can commence at any time, and on May 10th an inspector from the Civil Administration visited Susya to take photographs and measurements that represent the first steps towards the village’s evacuation and demolition.

In response, the Israeli human rights NGO B’Tselem released a statement criticizing the state, saying that “the Israeli authorities’ policy contradicts its obligation to meet the needs of the residents of the occupied territories and constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian law, which prohibits their forced transfer.”

In front of the Supreme Court, though, the international law argument has not been stressed by Susya’s representatives. “We also involve arguments from international law,” Mohar said about their legal strategy, “but the Israeli high court doesn’t value this. They acknowledge international law in a very narrow sense.” The international law perspective is not particularly helpful, even if applicable, as it is “not a very strong position for the High Court.”

An agonizing waiting game has begun for the Palestinians of Susya. The future of their village is clouded in doubt, not knowing on any one day whether they will have a home by nightfall.