The hill of evil council - Nadav Shragai

by Nadav Shragai

For 68 years, the U.N. has occupied the High Commissioner's Palace in Jerusalem, with its breathtaking views, free of charge, as it passed multiple resolutions against Israel • Now some political figures are looking into the possibility of an eviction.

An aerial photo of the U.N. headquarters in the High Commissioner's Palace in Jerusalem | Photo credit: Courtesy of the Regavim group

In his book "City of Stone and Sky," the writer Yehuda Haezrahi finds it difficult to hide his envy of the British high commissioner who "grabbed the most fantastic place in the world ... built a palace there, and every morning when he wakes up and opens his eyes ... can see from the palace windows the loftiest and most holy view in the world, as if it were his." 

The Israeli government under former Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, which fought a fierce, and ultimately unsuccessful, battle with the U.N. about the legality of Israel retaining the High Commissioner's Palace was also envious of the U.N., which succeeded the British as the permanent tenants of the palace. 

In the 1970s, the government had the idea to move the President's Residence to the unique building, a glory of architectural creativity and carefully planned gardens. As President Reuven Rivlin was about to begin his term in office, there were still some who were thinking about moving the official residence to the palace, or more precisely to the adjacent Givat Entebbe, which is part of the palace compound. When the idea was presented to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Rivlin, they didn't reject it, but the idea was blocked at the professional level for various reasons. 

Since the British transferred the palace to the U.N. in 1948, dozens -- even hundreds -- of anti-Israel decisions have floated through its halls. The systemic anti-Israel attitude of the U.N. was so obvious that even outgoing Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon admitted a few weeks ago that the organization was "biased" against Israel. 

Now, following the Security Council's ringing resolution on the settlements some in Israel are examining what action can be taken to oust the U.N. from the palace and return the building to the government, the legal heir of the British Mandate, which ended over 68 years ago. 

Initial, behind-the-scenes clarifications are already underway. An orderly collection of material has been submitted to government authorities. Regavim, a movement dedicated to guaranteeing responsible land use and restoring rule of law in Israel, has prepared a thick file on the matter. 

Jerusalem Affairs and Heritage Minister Zeev Elkin (Likud) told the Israel Hayom weekend supplement that the U.N.'s status in the High Commissioner's Palace could be reconsidered. 

Elkin revealed that as the minister responsible for heritage sites, he has already asked his staff to look into "the legal and constitutional justification for the U.N.'s position there." 

"I'm not at all certain that the status has been regulated. There are more than a few questions about it, and given the fact that this organization operates so wildly, dishonestly, and unfairly against us, we need to examine the possibility of taking steps against it. 

Removing it from the High Commissioner's Palace, in compliance with the law, of course, is definitely one possibility," Elkin said. 

At least two other ministers support the idea. This week, the "opening shot" in the renewed battle to oust the U.N. from the palace appears to have been shot in the form of a question put to Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon (Kulanu) in the Knesset plenum. 

MK Bezalel Smotrich (Habayit Hayehudi) wanted to know "under what agreement the U.N. headquarters holds the state land at the High Commissioner's Palace? From when does the agreement date, and until when is it valid? Is there deviation from the land specified in the agreement? And is all the construction at the headquarters in accordance with building permits?" 

These questions weren't asked as a formality. The "High Commissioner's Palace Files," which contain exciting historical information, will soon be in use by anyone who wants to wave the sword of eviction over the head of the "U.N. settlement" in the High Commissioner's Palace.

Regavim were first to prepare a file of facts on the issue. A cursory glance at the books, press clippings and state records about the palace exposes the depth of the crisis between the U.N. and the Israeli government after the 1967 Six-Day War over the future of the palace. 

The place where the war broke out 

A little historical background on the crisis: In 1928 the British Mandate government acquired land in the Jabel Mukaber neighborhood of Jerusalem to build a headquarters for the Mandate government of Palestine. Architect Austen Harrison planned a beautiful building, which was dedicated five years later and stood surrounded by gardens in a 16-acre compound. The British high commissioners all lived there, and when the British Mandate ended, they handed it over to the Red Cross. 

In the 1948 War of Independence, the palace was the site of some fierce battles. Moshe Dayan, who was then commander of the Jerusalem region, racked up one of his notable military failures there. The attempt to take the hill on which the palace stands did not succeed, and as a result the Etzioni Brigade suffered heavy losses: 14 dead, 24 wounded and 10 soldiers taken prisoner. 

In early September 1948, an agreement was struck to demilitarize the area and Arab and Israeli outposts there were dismantled. A month later, the building was transferred to the U.N., and the U.N. observers who oversaw the cease-fire between Israel and Jordan moved in. 

The High Commissioner's Palace was also the place where the Six-Day War broke out. On the afternoon of June 5, 1967, a Jordanian patrol with the Arab Legion captured the roof of the palace. Their friends began advancing, with the goal of capturing the Israeli neighborhood of Talpiot in southeast Jerusalem. 

The Israeli counter-attack on the palace came only two hours later. A force comprised of a few tanks and infantry patrols pushed the Jordanians out of the building. The observers, under the leadership of General Odd Bull of Norway, were discovered hiding in one of the palace rooms and were evacuated from the premises to a hotel in the west of the city. All the Arab palace workers were taken to Israeli prisons. 

As the war was underway, then-U.N. Secretary-General U Thant asked Israel to return the observers to the palace. On June 9, the Security Council insisted on it, and on June 12 Thant demanded that Eshkol give him an answer within two days. Two weeks later, the government decided not to return the building to the U.N., but after arguments and an exchange of telegrams, the decision was reversed. The government allowed the general and his team back into the palace, but not in their previous role -- rather, in the position of supervising the cease-fire after the Six-Day War. 

The government records show that at the time, a rental contract had been prepared that allowed the U.N. free use of 11 acres. The agreement stipulates that the Israeli government can cancel the deal with reasonable advance notice. A few days after the war, a number of public figures and poets held a demonstration against returning the High Commissioner's Palace to the U.N. 

Poet Yitzhak Shalev and Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Halevy gave impassioned speeches. There was resistance also in the Knesset to giving back the palace, but at the end of two months' of diplomatic contact, the IDF evacuated the palace, the U.N. staff returned to it, and once again the palace flag waved from its rooftop. 

Legal expansion? 

These events are still relevant 50 years on because they lie at the core of the legal clarification that has already begun into the possibility of evicting the U.N. staff from the High Commissioner's Palace. Moreover, the people at Regavim have found that the agreement reached with the U.N. was never signed -- there was only an exchange of telegrams and a sketched-out map. As time went on, the map became a source of conflict between Israel and the U.N. On some unknown date, possibly in the late 1960s or early 1970s, the size of the U.N.-held plot increased significantly, mainly to the east, from 11 acres to 19 acres. One of the questions being examined is whether the expansion was lawful and permitted. 

What is already clear is that the land is state-owned. The U.N. never purchased it. In effect, it received the use of it as a present from the Israeli government for an unspecified time. Can the hand that giveth also taketh away? 

A question of equal importance, raised in the Foreign Ministry, has to do with the role of the U.N. staff at the site. In 1967, Israel agreed to the U.N. presence in the High Commissioner's Palace so the international body could supervise the cease-fire with three countries that fought Israel in the Six-Day War: Jordan, Egypt and Syria. That mission is no longer relevant. Israel has peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt, and in Syria everyone is fighting everyone. Supposedly, Elkin and other ministers argue, these geopolitical changes should be enough to eradicate the need of any U.N. presence at the palace. 

Veteran journalist Danny Rubinstein was one of the soldiers who took the High Commissioner's Palace in the Six-Day War. When he visited the site later on, he got the impression that there were grounds for architect David Kroyanker's claim that whoever planned a government building like that on 16 acres planned to remain in the land of Israel for many years. The senior members of the Mandate government never thought that Palestine/the land of Israel would break away from the British Empire 15 years after the palace was built. 

The large wooded area that surrounds the palace and its gardens now somewhat hides the special view. On a clear day, the mountains of Moab and the Dead Sea can be seen from the palace, as well as the suburbs of Amman in the distance and, closer by, the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem, the neighborhoods that surround it, and the Temple Mount. 

Nearby, the neighborhood of East Talpiot (known as the Hebrew words for "High Commissioner's Palace," Armon Hanatziv) was built. Later, the famous promenade was added, which only a week and a half ago was the site of a murderous ramming attack that killed four soldiers. The palace faces Jabel Mukaber. 

The hill on which the High Commissioner's Palace sits is also known as the Hill of Evil Counsel, a common mistake for "Hill of Evil Council," a name which comes from the Byzantine Christian tradition linking the hill to the residence of the High Priest of the Second Temple, the place where the Temple priests supposedly met to discuss betraying Jesus to the Romans. 

In May of 1990, the Government Names Committee decided to give the Hill of Evil Counsel a new name: Etzel Hill, after the Etzel creek, which marks out the hill to the north. 

Jewish tradition and legends, on the other hand, revere the hill on which the High Commissioner's Palace stands as the place where Abraham the Patriarch first saw the Land of Moriah when he came up from the south and approached it to sacrifice his son Isaac. Pilgrims who recorded their journeys in the Holy Land hundreds of years ago also note it as the location from which Abraham first beheld Mount Moriah. 

The High Commissioner's Palace is well-documented in literature. In his book "The Hill of Evil Counsel," author Amos Oz describes the parties for dignitaries held there. Haezrahi mentions the palace, as does author Hanoch Bartov, who fought and was wounded there in 1948. 

For over 68 years, the U.N. has been treating the High Commissioner's Palace hilltop as its own, and isn't in a hurry to move. The only time it was sent away was during the Six-Day War, but thanks to international pressure it found its way back. 

Now renewed attempts to oust it from the palace will likely encounter international resistance. However, it's also possible that the very fact that Israel is looking into doing so will somewhat mitigate the harsh anti-Israel line the organization has toed for so many years.

Nadav Shragai

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=39723

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.