For years, NIF-funded organizations including Gisha, Hamoked, Adalah and others have been leading Israel's national defense establishment down a rabbit hole with their petitions to Bagatz (Israel's Supreme Court), hindering Israel's ability to defeat Hamas time and time again.
During a Supreme Court discussion last week, several disturbing revelations emerged concerning the conduct of the government and the Court's in relation to the pro-terror population of Gaza and radical left-wing organizations.
In the course of the discussion, Justice Amit explained that the Supreme Court is trying to address the 'bottleneck' in Gaza to ensure aid reaches urban centers. He addressed the left-wing organizations, stating, 'This court is at your service, it places itself at your disposal."
General Ghassan Alian, coordinator of government operations in the territories, addressed the court, and explained the military's policy regarding aid to hospitals in Gaza. In the discussion, he recounted how the army and the Shin Bet (Israel's internal security service) allowed Gazans to bring dozens of items into hospitals in the Gaza Strip that are considered to have 'dual-use' (i.e., could potentially be used to manufacture weapons).
Following this discussion, the IDF announced a 'tactical ceasefire' in order to comply with the Supreme Court's demands.
The 'tactical ceasefire' declared by the IDF, will take effect between 08:00-19:00 along an axis that stretches from the Kerem Crossing to the European Hospital. According to media reports, the IDF did not inform Defense Minister Galant or Prime Minister Netanyahu about the ceasefire, and according to Minister of National Security Ben-Gvir it explicitly contradicts the decisions of the Security Cabinet.
When Bagatz Thwarted the Siege on Gaza
In Chapter 6 of "The Gaza File" article series, we examined the siege that Olmert's government attempted to impose in order to pressure the population into overthrowing Hamas after the movement had seized power in Gaza. Ultimately, the siege was undermined by petitions to the judicial system and the Supreme Court, the outcome of which rendered the siege ineffective.
In 2007, the government decided to impose a siege on the Gaza Strip in an attempt to overthrow Hamas's rule, but the Attorney General's office and petitions to the Supreme Court effectively pulled the rug out from under this plan. Although the Supreme Court eventually, after a long wait, officially rejected the petition against the Defense Minister's decision, it did so only after ensuring that the decision would not harm the population had itself elected Hamas. As a result, the siege was rendered ineffective and Hamas remained in power even after Olmert's and Barak's terms of office.
At the time, a group of extreme left-wing organizations submitted a petition to the Supreme Court arguing that Israel must provide electricity to the Gaza Strip. The petition demanded that the Cabinet's decision be overturned and argued that "this is a decision to indiscriminately restrict the supply of essential infrastructure that serves one and a half million men, women, and children, including the petitioners, who are not involved in activities against the State of Israel and are not affiliated with Hamas."
"The same conclusions emerge from media statements by Cabinet ministers, according to which their intention in the decision was to inflict suffering on the residents of Gaza, in order to provoke 'civil unrest' against Hamas in response to continued Qassam rocket fire from the Strip into Israel." The petition quoted Minister Haim Ramon as saying in an interview for the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth that Israel should take punitive steps such as cutting off electricity and water supply.
The government responded to the petition, saying that it is irrelevant because "the Attorney General has determined that until further deliberation and based on its outcomes, there is no justification for reducing the electricity supply to Gaza." Additionally, the government contended that these matters are "clear policy-security issues, which it is inappropriate for the honorable court to adjudicate using its discretion
The Court categorically disagreed—Bagatz judges clarified that from their perspective, there is nothing preventing the Court's intervention in governmental security decisions and enforcement of 'international law': "Our role is to exercise judicial review of compliance with the principles of Israeli and international law binding on the State of Israel... It has already been stated that the principles of law remain in force during times of war, and the rules of war must be upheld."
To summarize: the Supreme Court effectively neutralized and overturned the siege on Hamas. Initially, they required prior notice to the Palestinians for every electricity cut, and later ruled that diesel fuel supply to the Gaza Strip could not be cut off since it also powers hospitals and the same for the mazut fueling power plants. Detailed deliberations followed on the 'security margin' required for reducing electricity. The siege became unworkable, allowing Hamas to strengthen its control in Gaza during those critical formative moments without interference from Israel, while rocket fire into Israel continued as usual. The valuable time squandered by the Supreme Court was exploited by Hamas to develop strategies and solutions, including generators and other inventions, all while laboring over their master plan: by the time the Supreme Court finally approved what remained of the "siege" in late January, 4 days had passed since Hamas succeeded in breaking through the Rafah wall launched its tunnel project. The siege was meaningless.
