Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened a special discussion on Friday aimed at finding a compromise that would prevent the demolition of illegal houses in Ulpana, a neighborhood in the town of Beit El in Judea and Samaria.

The case is related to a petition submitted in 2008 by the Yesh Din organization on behalf of an Arab resident, Abed al-Rahman, from a neighboring village. The petition claims the land in Ulpana is registered under his name and not under the name of his relative who sold the land to the developer. Currently, there are two uncompleted structures of three and four floors respectively, and three more already have foundations.

Among the officials who attended the discussion were Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein, newly appointed Vice Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon and Minister Without Portfolio Benny Begin.

The discussion follows several previous meetings on the Ulpana dispute in recent weeks which did not yield any concrete decisions. Earlier this week, Netanyahu urged all sides involved in the issue to "first stop and think" before making any decisions.

One option is to legislate a law which would, in effect, bypass the High Court, retroactively authorize the illegal structures built in Ulpana and determine that, if it was proven in court that the land on which the structures were built was private and belonged to Palestinians, the landowners would be compensated, but the structures would not be demolished.

A bill along these lines, which may itself be adopted or serve as the basis for another bill, was introduced recently MKs Zevulun Orlev (New National Religious Party) and Zeev Elkin (Likud) and has been referred to as the "Arrangement Law." According to the bill, a Jewish neighborhood that was built on land whose legal owners did not ask for compensation within four years of construction would be protected from eviction or demolition. At the same time, the court may order that the landowners be fully compensated for their land.

Orlev, who is slated to bring the bill to the Knesset next week for approval of a preliminary reading, said on Thursday that he made the decision to do so following reports that Netanyahu was considering allowing ministers to vote their conscience on the bill and that many of them would vote in favor of it. He added that in the past the coalition's leadership had decided to allow members to vote their conscience on the law.

Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein also commented on the Ulpana issue on Thursday, saying, "If this coalition does not cause delays and does not pass the issue over to the High Court, but resolves once and for all through legislation the important issues regarding settlements in Judea and Samaria -- this would suffice!"

Earlier this week, the High Court criticized the state for its attempt to postpone the evacuation of buildings in Ulpana, despite a Supreme Court ruling from last year instructing the state to demolish the five structures in question, saying they were built on private Palestinian land.

Chief Justice Asher Grunis and Justices Salim Joubran and Uzi Vogelman on Sunday morning heard the state's request to reconsider the court's previous ruling about the structures in the Ulpana neighborhood. Last Friday, the state had asked the court to re-examine its decision, citing the challenges the move is likely to present Beit El residents.

Sunday's hearing came after the Supreme Court ruled last September that the state had to demolish illegal structures in Ulpana, by May 1, if the residents did not demolish them themselves by that date.

The state requested the hearing in an effort to reconsider law enforcement in the region and to take into consideration political, public and operational concerns, according to Army Radio.

At the hearing, Vogelman blasted the state's request to postpone the evacuation by three months, saying, "There is a court ruling on this issue. I don't understand the legal framework for this request. This means that after every court ruling, the government can request to reopen the case at a later time."