The High Court of Justice is usually characterized by a wide spectrum of opinions, representing judicial pluralism at its best. On Thursday, however, Chief Justice Miriam Naor and Justices Hanan Melcer and Noam Sohlberg were all equally puzzled by a delicate question with potentially tough political ramifications: Why has the government suddenly decided to delay the razing of terrorists' homes- The issue was raised because in the past it was the state that pushed for expediency, petitioning the High Court to issue urgent rulings on motions to raze terrorists' homes, which it often granted. So why the sudden hesitation and even remorse over something the state itself is seeking? Thursday's hearing was unique in that it sought to counter the results of a hearing held one week earlier, when Justice Uzi Vogelman issued a temporary injunction against the state's motion to level terrorists' homes, a decision that evoked scathing criticism from Habayit Hayehudi MK Moti Yogev and Likud MKs Yariv Levin and Zeev Elkin. Yogev's lambasting bordered on incitement, suggesting that Vogelman had "sided with the enemy" merely by ruling that a fair hearing on the matter was in order. Vogelman did the right thing by allowing the terrorists' families to have their day in court, and his instinct proved right, as the sense of urgency the state sought to inspire in that particular case proved false, especially after we learned that the state has yet to carry out previous demolition orders, despite having the necessary permits. What is the reason for this hesitation? It most likely stems from the legitimate unease this measure evokes even in state officials, and the knowledge that not only does it fail to generate deterrence, it actually encourages Palestinians to launch terrorist attacks. Most importantly, the state confirmed Thursday that razing terrorists' homes is an unusual measure, and one that can only be justified in the unusual circumstances of a surge in violence. Against this backdrop, one cannot help but suspect that the Israel Prison Service is failing to toughen conditions for terrorists in jail as much as it legally could, and that because of this, the state has no choice but to exact a price for their crimes from their families. Would it be right to assume that the government prefers to create deterrence with the verbal threat to level terrorists' homes, rather than actually carrying out the threat with the High Court's approval? The three judges were correct in demanding the state answer for the dozens of demolition orders pending execution. Why should the court grant new motions when old ones have been left to gather dust? Would granting the new demolition motions agitate the situation in Judea and Samaria and fan the flames of terrorism further? In weighing up the pros and cons, does the state believe the advantages of the measure outweigh its disadvantages? And when the state files new petitions to allow razings, will previously condemned buildings still be left standing? It is safe to assume that whatever has happened will happen again.
