Haste makes waste

Back in the bad old days leading up to the disengagement, one of my chief complaints (accusations, actually) against those driving the disengagement was not so much what they wanted to do, as how they insisted upon doing it.

Nobody has ever been able to give me a convincing explanation of why the disengagement had to be carried out in a headlong dash before any arrangements could be made regarding the needs of those being transferred (ethnically cleansed, if we must be accurate) from gaza, such as new housing, compensation, employment, education, social services, etc.. 

There was also no attempt to coordinate the exit from Gaza with the Palestinians.  This resulted in the power vacuum that allowed Hamas to stage of a violent coup.

The Israeli leaders, and their cheerleaders on the left, simply kept chanting that we needed to get out of Gaza as soon as possible, and anyone who wanted to delay for any reason was called anti-peace and unpatriotic.

Remember that?  I know some of you do... and others have conveniently blocked it from your memory.

In the end, it was all about manufacturing a violent confrontation between the left and right where none was necessary.  Any compromise on the timing or scope of the disengagement would have helped defuse the conflict, so compromise and delay were unthinkable. 

Ariel Sharon had serious legal troubles looming, and the only way he could keep the press from hounding him was to make sure he continued acting in a way that pleased those on the left;  meaning driving the Gaza settlers from their homes, rather than offering them a way to move in an orderly, humane and dignified manner. 

The message was clear:  There was an enemy in Gaza that required swift and uncompromising attack... and it wasn't the Palestinians.

Now, with the Supreme Court's nullification of the Government's signed compromise with the residents of Migron, we are seeing a replay of this previous hasty insanity.

The Supreme court has taken a radical leftist position which, despite all claims to the contrary, has nothing to do with the rule of, or respect for, the law.

The primary issue is that some Arabs brought suit against Migron claiming that part of the settlement was built on private Palestinian-owned land. 

Now, in any normal country, if someone comes to you and says you are living on their land, the burden of proof is on the claimant to actually show that the land is theirs. 

Not here. 

To date the Arabs (and their leftist Israeli NGO backers) have never produced a shred of evidence to indicate that the land is theirs (or anybodies, for that matter).  In fact, at the crucial stage where they were required to present the proof, they simply didn't show up in court.

Again, in any normal country, at that point the case would have been dismissed for lack of evidence.

Not here.

At that point the Supreme Court decided that evidence wasn't necessary, and issued rulings demanding the destruction of Migron according to an arbitrary (and accelerated!) timetable.

Seeing the writing on the wall, the current Likud government began trying to work out a sane compromise with the resident of Migron which would satisfy their needs, as well as the demands of the Supreme court for the destruction of the settlement. 

Despite the claims from the left that the settlers were incapable of compromise, a reasonable deal was eventually reached which would serve everyone's needs (while ignoring the inconvenient legal fact that the original legal imperative to move had never been proven by the Palestinians and their Peace Now handlers).  A new settlement would be build a short distance away from the current location on land that was not in dispute.  And once the new housing was ready, the residents of Migron would move there... thus removing the key claim of settlers living on 'private Palestinian Land'.

Apparently, as with the disengagement, a compromise which would remove a source of friction/conflict between the right and left, was the last thing the Supreme court wanted.  So they nullified the compromise agreement and set an arbitrary and early date by which Migron would have to be demolished... a date by which it will be all but impossible to arrange new housing for the people who had agreed to the compromise in good faith.

Mind you, there is no need for this headlong rush to throw the settlers out of their homes and destroy the settlement.  To date there is still not a shred of evidence that the land belongs to any private Palestinian owner, so there are no damages that would be compounded by the delay called for in the compromise agreement.

There is simply an activist Supreme court which ignores, rather than supports the rule of law... and seeks only to punish those on the right who dare to challenge their agenda.

There was no need for the reckless haste of the disengagement from Gaza.  It only served to punish the settlers with homelessness, joblessness and a slew of social problems from which many will never recover.  And there is no need now for the reckless haste with which the Israeli Supreme Court is demanding that Migron be evacuated and demolished. 

The compromise which was reached between the residents of Migron and the Israeli government would have accomplished exactly what the court is demanding.  But it would have allowed the settlers to show their patriotism and desire to do what's good for the country (even when the law and common sense are in their favor). 

But the Supreme Court simply can't stomach a situation where the evil nationalists are allowed demonstrate their patriotism.  They must be punished... herded like cattle from their homes... maybe even forced into a violent confrontation with the army that will be sent to destroy their town.  Anything to promote conflict and antipathy between the left and right. 

The reason is simple:  If the left and right ever begin to work hand-in-hand, one of the first things they'll do is change the self-perpetuating nature of the Supreme Court (they pick their own successors!), and establish some sort of checks and balance to ensure an activist, unelected judiciary can't rule in place of the legitimate government of the country.