Israel's Supreme Court has ruled that the security fence has to be moved because it's unfair to the Palestinians on the other side. I'm certainly not an Israeli lawyer, and I have little idea of how their court system works, but this really doesn't sound like business any judges should be involved in.
Israel's high court said the barrier could be built to keep out Palestinian attackers, but that the route caused too much hardship for Palestinians. The world court said in an advisory ruling that the barrier is illegal and must be dismantled.Since when are judges qualified to determine "Israel's security needs"? Isn't that the job of the Parliament and the various ministers? Well, who knows -- maybe the Israeli Supreme Court is full of generals or ninjas or something.
While the old route was defined purely by security considerations, the new one would try to find a balance between Israel's security needs and Palestinian rights, a defense official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
In redrawing the map, planners were asked not to run the barrier next to Palestinian villages and not to separate Palestinians from their fields and schools, the official said.
As a result, the barrier would run much closer to Israel and more Israeli settlements would end up on the "Palestinian" side than originally planned.
Why is it that almost everything judges do that makes the news strikes me as meddling and stupid? Is it just a media selection factor? Or are these sorts of stupid things just the tip of the judicial iceberg?