Political Considerations Trump Justice and Rule of Law

High Court blasts government for not compensating settlers for freeze

The High Court criticized the government on Wednesday for not having set up a formal mechanism to compensate settlers for damages incurred by a freeze on new construction in their West Bank communities.

"I don't know how much he who gave the order [also] gave his opinion on all the variations of possible injuries that could be a result of it," said Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch during a hearing on four petitions filled against the moratorium.

She also asked the State Prosecutor's Office to relay to the relevant authorities her comments on the freeze, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced two weeks ago as a bid to restart peace talks with the Palestinians.

Along with Supreme Court Justice Ayala Procaccia, Beinisch said there was a need for the government to create a body that would immediately deal with the damage caused.

Nonetheless, the justices said they understood the security and diplomatic goals of the move, which they said was a legitimate measure.

and this:-

The panel of three justices, headed by Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch, sharply questioned the state's representative, Hani Ofek, on the compensation arrangements provided in the military order.

"Don't you have to determine compensation according to much more explicit and clear criteria?" asked Justice Ayala Procaccia.

Justice Neal Hendel said, "There is no incentive for completing the compensation process very quickly. The order includes no details. There is just a general declaration."

"Who may build? On what grounds can one claim damages? What can the plaintiff do after the claims committee makes its decision? Anyone who is hurt by the freeze must know all these things," said Procaccia.

At the end of the hearing, Beinisch turned to Ofek and said, "Regarding the possible damages to individuals, you must pass our comments on to whoever is authorized to deal with these matters."

The petitioners, represented by attorneys Yitzhak Bam, Shai Gabsi, Gilad Rogel and Mordechai Mintzer, presented many other arguments for their demand to cancel or at least postpone the freeze. They charged that the freeze was disproportionate in that it caused more damage than benefit. Another argument raised was that the military commander was only authorized to enact military orders dealing with the well-being of the civilians under his authority or for security reasons in accordance with international law. In the case of the freeze, the commander was allegedly carrying out government orders to achieve political aims, that is, as the government said, to encourage the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table.

The attorneys also charged that building permit holders were not the only ones to suffer economically from the freeze. Hundreds of settlers had sold their homes to buy land and build anew. In the meantime, they were paying rent and had not yet received their building permits for their new homes, often for bureaucratic reasons.

But the court did not appear to be concerned with these arguments...The justices were also told that almost three weeks after the freeze order went into effect, the compensation claims committee had not yet been established.

The petitioners requested an interim injunction to suspend the freeze order as well as a show cause order calling for its cancellation. The court will hand down a decision on the requests in the coming days.