The recent Israeli High Court ruling striking down the compromise agreement between Israel’s government and the residents of Migron was logical. It was a realistic commentary on the state of affairs between the government and the court. In truth, the question that was laid at the High Court’s doorstep was not about Migron and not about property rights. It was much more basic than that. The question that the High Court was asked to decide was to whom the Land of Israel belongs.
The significance of the High Court’s ruling, that a Jewish settlement must be destroyed without any petition staking a claim to the land upon which Migron is built, is that the Land of Israel does not belong to the Jews – but rather to the Arabs. The Jews, according to the High Court, live in the Land of Israel with temporary resident status, as guests – a status completely different from that of the Arabs living here.
The deeper truth is that the High Court’s approach reflects that of Israeli society. The Israelis love the land, but after years of leftist thought manipulation they have adopted leftist temporary mentality and feel like guests in their land. It is the Arab who is here forever, the Arab who is the unmovable boulder. The Jew is a temporary guest who must apologize for his presence here.
Sound extreme? Just ask yourself what would happen if the tables were turned. Is it even remotely possible that an Arab village in Israel would be completely destroyed because of such an unfounded claim? The High Court would not even allow a hearing to come near it, and in a thicket of convoluted reasoning and legalese the system would determine the same preposterous principle that the Land of Israel belongs to the Arabs.
As long as the High Court justices elect themselves, the High Court will continue to bequeath its legacy of “a state of all its citizens” to the public. There is actually nothing to complain about, for this is their view – and the political branch of government empowers it.
Every child learns in his first civics lesson that the people are the sovereign. The parliament and the elected government actualize the rule of the people. The court’s role is to explain the laws legislated by the parliament. If Israel would have a justice system that represents the public’s values (in other words, if the justices would be filtered in some way by the state’s elected officials), Migron would never have been an issue.
When a home is built and after many years an unfounded claim on the property is made, any legal system would call, maximally, for compensation. And this would happen only after the claim was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But the High Court operates by a political worldview that is different than that of the vast majority of the public. The public – the sovereign – is then forced to enact another law to underscore its will. That is how the law that would legalize the outposts was born. The law is moderate, and begs to be legislated.
Many refer to the Outpost Law as a law that circumvents the High Court. That terminology is false, Orwellian newspeak in the finest tradition of Israel’s Left. The Knesset does not circumvent the High Court; the Knesset is the sovereign. It is the High Court that circumvented the Knesset. The Knesset is being forced to enact the Outpost Law to protect the public from the political whims of the High Court. The Outpost Law is moral, eminently legal, and supremely democratic. It is a step that, besides protecting Migron, will preserve the sovereignty of the people (namely, democracy and the law). It will also preserve the rule of the Likud, as another Amona will necessarily lead to its downfall.
What is preventing the legislation? One minister who believes in judges more than in God, and another minister or two who lean left and are subordinate to the politics inside the justice system. And don’t forget an entire imbroglio of leftist organizations and interests, and of course the media – the Sword of Damocles, ready and waiting to defame Prime Minister Netanyahu for trampling the “rule of law.”
In his quest to keep all those forces at bay, Netanyahu is not allowing the ministers to vote for the Outpost Law. But without the votes of the Likud ministers and MKs, there will not be a majority for the law.
If, God forbid, Netanyahu goes through with the destruction of Migron, he will suffer much more political harm than if he demonstrates leadership and solves the problem now.
Two ministers have already announced that they will vote in favor of the Outpost Law: Yisrael Katz and Moshe Kahlon. We wholeheartedly bless them and expect the other Likud MKs to follow in their footsteps. Ministers or MKs who do not vote in favor of the law should not expect our support in the Likud primaries.Moshe Feiglin