A general lockdown will be imposed on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip until after the Memorial Day for Israel's Fallen Soldiers and Victims of Terrorism and Independence Day, the IDF Spokesperson's Unit announced earlier this week due to security reasons, stressing that access will remain available for humanitarian and medical cases and other exceptions.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
The lockdown is a matter of routine and thus has been the position of the defense establishment for years. But in today's Israel, the defense minister (Yoav Gallant) is not the one who calls the shots when it comes to security. Judges do.
In 2018, 2019, and 2023, then-defense ministers Avigdor Lieberman, Benjamin Netanyahu, and now Galant saw no reason to make an exception for Palestinians to attend a joint Memorial Day ceremony with Israelis in Tel Aviv, a highly controversial alternative event.
Former Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit did not really defend Lieberman's position in court in 2018, and as a result, the three judges (Esther Hayut, Uzi Vogelman, and Anat Baron) – whose personal political opinions are hard to miss – forced him to approve the entry of 90 Palestinians into Israel to attend the ceremony.
In 2019, the court ruled against Netanyahu, and 100 Palestinians were granted entry. And this year, Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara is not even trying to defend Galant's position.
Both Baharav-Miara's position and the High Court's intervention reflect the administrative distortion of decision-making in Israel.
Firstly, It is Baharav-Miara's job to defend the position of the defense minister. Her not doing so only came about due to legal precedents. Her refusal, and Galant's inability to hire an external attorney to represent him in court, reflect the madness of the system.
Secondly, the court's ruling to overturn the defense minister's decision because he "should not interfere in how a family wishes to express its private bereavement" is ridiculous and biased. The state intervenes in myriads of ways in the way families express their pain, such as the uniform design of tombstones in military cemeteries, which the Supreme Court approved. If so, why is it acceptable to intervene in one case but not in the other?
By forcing the state to make exceptions to the lockdown to attend the alternative ceremony, the court and Baharav-Miara have become the ones most interfering in how families wish to express their grief.
While only several dozen bereaving families expressed support for the decision, hundreds of grieving families were hurt by the ruling and the very ceremony.
By pushing for such a compromise, the High Court hurt not only many bereaved families but the entire nation.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
