It could have ended differently

The sight of clashes between security forces and settlers in the Samaria outpost of Amona were both painful and redundant. The issue of Amona could have been resolved sooner, with an agreement that would have seen a new, legal Amona established, twice as large and twice as strong, at another location, not far from its original site.

The eviction and the heart-wrenching scenes could have been avoided had the settlers acted responsibly, but more importantly -- had populist politicians refrained from deluding them that there was a way to defy the High Court of Justice's rulings.

Israel is predicated on the rule of law. This means rulings by the High Court of Justice are upheld. If Israel ceases to be a nation of law, it will simply cease to be. Some have said High Court rulings can be sidelined or ignored, as they are tainted with the politics of the leftist minority that controls the court, and others have suggested the High Court is the enemy of the settlement enterprise. But this narrative offers nothing but baseless "alternative facts."

The High Court is not targeting the settlement enterprise. Its Amona ruling is not a political one, nor does it fall under judicial activism.

Judicial activism often sees the High Court unnecessarily weigh in on political and diplomatic issues. But the court has never done so when it comes to the settlement enterprise. On the contrary -- for almost 50 years, those opposing the settlement enterprise have tried to use the court to delegitimize it and declare it illegal, but to no avail. The High Court of Justice has never granted any such petition, nor has it ever subscribed to this opinion.

The court has never weighed in on the government's settlement policies. We have 700,000 proofs of that -- the 700,000 Israelis living beyond the Green Line. This number includes Israelis living in Jerusalem neighborhoods built beyond the Green Line, as those who argue against the legality of the settlement enterprise, argue against the legality of annexation as well.

The only thing the court has interfered with is settlement on private Palestinian land. The court does not interfere with the government's policies, but it does protect individual rights, should any individual be wronged by the state. Such defense is the core purpose of the High Court of Justice. Settling on someone else's private land is illegal, and that is why the court ruled against it.

In 1979, the Begin government made a principled decision: The Judea and Samaria settlement enterprise will exclude private Palestinian land and include only state land.

There are nearly 250,000 acres of state land across Judea and Samaria on which many settlements can be built to fulfill government policy. There is no reason and no justification to build on private land. This is the appropriate policy not just because it is a legal one, but because it serves natural justice.

There is no justification to build on private land other than a worldview suggesting Palestinians are unworthy of human rights. Such a worldview is unacceptable in a democracy, let alone in the Jewish state, and Israel -- as a Jewish and democratic state -- cannot be party to it.

The mistake made by settling on private land in Amona could have been rectified via an agreement, in a way that could have benefited the settlers, the settlement enterprise and Israelis society as a whole. This solution was stopped short by one thing -- responsibility.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו