It is a rare day when an article in Haaretz perks me up - but today is one of them. In a piece this morning the author tells about how eight months ago the Supreme Court ruled against what they called "neighbor procedures". This was a way for the IDF to try to get a wanted fugitive to surrender, by using a neighbor to approach the person. This way the fugitive would not just shoot whoever came to the door, assuming he was an IDF soldier, and additionally the soldiers could get information about what was happening in the apartment so they could know how to proceed.
When discussing the case, the IDF warned that banning the procedure would unnecessarily endanger soldiers' lives. The court banned it anyway, despite expert testimony by Senior General Staff officers.
The IDF changed its tactics - but happily they found a way to proceed without endangering the soldiers. You've heard of the expression, it you can't go in through the door, try the window? Well, in this case it is if you can't go in through the door, try the wall... Now when they need to apprehend a fugitive holed up in a house, they shoot warning shots first, and if he doesn't give himself up, they start to bulldoze the house.
According to the article, "both the army and human rights groups, who closely follow developments in the territories, agree that the risk to the lives of Palestinian civilians is greater today. Furthermore, the new procedures result in more extensive damage to Palestinian homes."
In an understatement, the article also has the following quote, "the court's decision reflects a certain dislocation from the operational realities in the territories, and that the moral argument accepted by the court has resulted in grave danger to the lives of Palestinian citizens and their property."
Knee-jerk liberalism causes more harm than good, and the arrogance of the so called "elite" in the court who ignore other points of view in order to push through its own worldview can result in their hurting the very people they supposedly want to protect.