Beit HaShalom

The settlement was politically controversial as was the legality of the purchase. The Israeli Civil Administration initially decided that the settlers' move into the house was illegal and they must be evacuated. It advised Defense Minister Amir Peretz to order an immediate evacuation of the house, based on the argument that the settlers did not receive the necessary permits from the Civil Administration.[4] The settlers could have been evacuated under Civil Administration Order 25, which determined that the occupation or transfer of ownership of homes in the West Bank by Jews requires the approval of the head of the civil administration.[14] The legal basis for the Defense Minister's decision to evacuate the home in Hebron also came from a 1980 cabinet decision, when then-prime minister Menachem Begin's government decided that the cabinet was the only body authorized to approve the expansion of the Jewish community in Hebron.[15] Defense Minister Amir Peretz and Deputy Defense Minister Efraim Sneh expected the evacuation to be completed by mid-May 2007.[4] But ministers and MKs who spoke to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he opposed evacuating the home at this stage, and hinted that he would prefer to block an evacuation until after the Labor primary, when Olmert was expected to have an easier defense minister with which to work. A clear majority against the evacuation was expected if the matter would come to a vote in the cabinet.[16]

The Ministry of Defense prohibited the occupants from making improvements to the building to render it habitable for winter - upholding a court order that forbade any change in the status quo of the house. The building had no windows, only gaps where windows were intended to be installed.[17] The gaps were sealed with plastic sheets.

However, following the evacuation on 4 December 2008, "Jewish extremists embarked on an unprecedented rampage through Hebron".[24][25] UN OCHA field worker Tareq Talahme claimed that "hundreds" of settlers entered Hebron and torched fields, olive groves, and yards in the nearby Wadi Nasara (Wadi al Hussein), between Hebron and Kiryat Arba. They set fire to 5 houses near the building, and damaged more than 27 cars. Settler youths took over a Palestinian home in the valley and caused extensive damage.[24] Settlers fired at Palestinians. A man was caught on videotape shooting at a Palestinian and his son in Wadi al Hussein'. Both Palestinians were evacuated by the IDF in serious condition.[24] The shooting incidents and destructions in the valley were recorded in affidavits by Al-Haq.[26] Two Kiryat Arba residents, suspected of shooting at Palestinians at close range were arrested. The shooting was filmed by B'Tselem members. [27] Israelis and Palestinians clashed after settlers entered the Palestinian-controlled part of Hebron (Area H1) and set fire to at least three cars. A Palestinian news team that was filming the violence was attacked.[24] Settlers vandalized Palestinian property and pelt homes with rocks through the West Bank.[27] The press reported that settlers attacked the villages of Burin and Huwara, south of Nablus, damaging homes, burning trees, agricultural fields and cars late on 4 December. Rabbis for Human Rights reported that most northern West Bank roads were blocked by settlers, and widespread fires were visible in the Nablus region.

According to Haaretz, the settlers had purchased the property after several years of negotiations with the Palestinian owners. The settlers claimed they had bought the house legally, and had signed a contract, a claim which the Palestinians denied.[4]

On 3 July 2007, the Israeli State declared before the High Court that the police forensics department had found that the documents which supported the settlers' claim of legal ownership had been forgeries - or provided serious doubt regarding their authenticity.[28] The Palestinian claimants admitted that they had indeed agreed to transfer ownership of the property to a third party, but claimed the deal was later cancelled. They did not provide documentation to support this claim.[28]

In January 2008, in response to a petition by the settlers against eviction orders, the state declared that the Palestinian owner of the building was undoubtedly in possession of the property when settlers took it over on 19 March 2007.[5] The state recognized the settlers as "recent trespassers", and said that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the sale of the building to the Jewish purchasers had been completed.[5] According to the state, a contract for the sale of the building was indeed signed between Rajabi and a Palestinian partner on the one side, and Ayub Jaber, a Palestinian intermediary for the purchasers, on the other, in return for 460,000 Jordanian dinars. However, many documents the alleged Jewish purchasers presented to the police Crimes Investigation Unit were forged. The state's attorney wrote ″We are talking about large-scale forgeries of many documents that were supposed to support the petitioners' [the settlers'] claims″.[5] The company that purchased the property had in recent years already been involved with suspected forgery and fraud upon house purchases.[29]

In November 2008, the settlers' lawyer Nadav Ha'etzni stated that his clients had purchased the building as early as 2004. A Palestinian front man, Ayub Yosef Jaber, had signed a contract with Rajabi on 23 March 2004. A video in which, according to the Jerusalem Post, Rajabi was seen signing the sales contract was submitted to the Court.[8] Ayub Jaber, who worked on behalf of the Jewish group,[7] signed the sale agreement with the Jordanian front company "Tal Building and Investments Karnei Shomron".[30]

In September 2012, the Jerusalem District Court ruled that the purchase was indeed valid and the house must be returned to the purchasers within one month.[30][31] It dismissed the claim that the purchase agreement had been annulled before it was finalized. However, the judge stressed that he was not ordering the Civil Administration to pursue legal measures that would give the settlers authorization to live in the house.[31] Nachi Eyal, Director of the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel, commented that “The Minister of Defense and representatives of the State Prosecutor need to apologize and compensate the owners in Hebron.”[30]

On 11 March 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Jerusalem District Court regarding ownership.[32] The court found that the original vendors had turned a blind eye to the fact that the buyer was a strawman working for a Jewish group.[7] The court determined that the property should only be handed over after approval of the Minister of Defense to register the property in the name of the settlers. The ruling also did not oblige the Government to register the settler’s rights.[33] The court however ruled that the purchasers still owed the vendor $217,000 on the transaction, and could not reinhabit the property until the outstanding sum had been paid.[7] Peace Now called the potential new settlement "a disaster-in-the-Making".[33]

Following the High Court's decision, Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon approved the return of the building's new owners on 13 April 2014.[34][35] Soon after the Defense Minister’s decision, three families moved in.[34][36]

In response to Ya'alon's approval, United Nations Special Rapporteur Richard Falk urged Israel to prevent settlers from taking over the Al-Rajabi House. He said that ″Hebron embodies all the worst features of apartheid, colonialism and oppression that are to be found throughout Occupied Palestine″. He added that the establishment of this settlement at Al-Rajabi House was a move toward connecting the settlement of Kiryat Arba with the other outposts in the Old City of Hebron and the Cave of the Patriarchs.[36]

Beit HaShalom is the first new settlement established inside Hebron since the 1980s and the first settlement in this particular part of Hebron.[33] Meretz MK Zehava Gal-On noted that severe restrictions on the movements of Palestinians who live on the road already existed, and stated that the new settlement would only worsen their situation,[37] a prospect envisaged by other observers.[33] It will be the fifth settlement within the Hebron municipality boundaries, after Beit Hadassah, Avraham Avinu, Beit Romano and Tel Rumeida.[38]