“The series of violent incidents near the settlement of Yitzhar didn’t take defense officials by surprise. Right-wing extremists, many of whom live in the outposts near Yitzhar, are under close surveillance by the Shin Bet security service’s Jewish division and clash periodically with the Israel Police in the West Bank. Not all Yitzhar residents support violence against soldiers and the police; far from it. But for years now, the settlers in Yitzhar have had a complicated relationship with the “hilltop youth” radicals living around them. The public condemnations by some of them of stone throwing or threats against soldiers and the Border Police are coming a bit late – after years of tacit acceptance of attacks on neighboring Palestinian villages.”

“This judgment is yet another link in the chain. In handing it down, the Supreme Court proved yet again that it is willing to greenlight almost any injustice when the human rights violation is directed against Palestinians. This time, President Hayut chose a circuitous interpretation of the Defence Regulations and an almost perfunctory assessment of the provisions of international law, while emphasizing the need for creative, dynamic interpretation given the harsh reality. The justices of the Supreme Court may not enact laws, design policy or implement it, but they do have the power, and the duty, to determine whether a policy brought before them for deliberation is lawful. They have the power and duty to prohibit a policy when it defies international and Israeli law, and when it unjustifiably violates the human rights of Palestinian residents of the Occupied Territories. Instead, the justices elect, time and time again, to ignore the broader context in which these violations take place: a rigid military regime that has been in place for more than fifty years, governing an occupied population that has no political rights and no say in the most basic decisions affecting its life. These circumstances warrant enhanced protection for the population, yet the court uses its powers of judicial review to enhance the power of the state, including its use of draconian measures. In so doing, not only do the Supreme Court justices fail to discharge their duties, but they also play a pivotal role in legitimizing the entire occupation, which benefits from the seal of approval given to its inherent human rights violations by the highest judicial instance in the land.”

Victor Kattan writes, “There is no dispute about sovereignty or who owns the gas. That it belongs to the Palestinian people is clear under international law. Even Israel does not dispute this. As Nabil Shaath, who was the PA’s Minister of Planning and International Cooperation in 1999 when the agreement with BG Group was concluded, told Palestinian radio: ‘Under the Gaza-Jericho agreement, the Israelis acknowledged our right to 20 miles (32km) into the sea as an economic sovereignty area, including its potential resources, such as oil and gas.’ When the 1999 contract was concluded it was envisaged that one of the main buyers of Gaza’s gas would be Israel – in what was widely believed to be an Israeli precondition for allowing the development of the fields to go ahead – and ‘that gas from Gaza will soon be fuelling Israeli power stations as well as Palestinian industry’.”

“The public’s criticism of the series was over the fact that it addresses Abu Khdeir’s murder and not on the abduction and murder of the three Jewish boys – Gilad Shaar, Eyal Yifrah and Naftali Fraenkel – that preceded it. But in fact the focus of “Our Boys” is not the Palestinian narrative or the Jewish-Israeli narrative, but rather the psychology of Abu Khdeir’s murderers: The psychological mechanisms that led teenagers without a criminal past to commit murder. This psychology is presented in such a sharp and in-depth manner that it even manages to create empathy in the viewers.”

“Benny Gantz’s centrist alliance could introduce the bill as early as next Monday when it gains control of the key Knesset Arrangements Committee, a temporary committee that replaces the role of the House Committee in introducing legislation until a new government is formed.”

“Contrary to the prevailing political wisdom, Benny Gantz, the Blue and White leader who from Wednesday evening has 28 days to form a government, does potentially have a clear path to becoming prime minister. As with so much of what has played out in Israeli politics since April, it runs via Avigdor Liberman. The question is whether he should and will choose to walk it.”

“The 70-year-old prime minister has called two elections this year, has twice been given the chance by the president to put together a ruling coalition, and has twice failed. President Reuven Rivlin will on Wednesday turn to Netanyahu’s centrist rival Benny Gantz, leaving Netanyahu even more vulnerable in his fight for political survival. But although he has failed, Gantz – a former general and political novice – also has no clear path to success. Here are some of the possible scenarios, including even a third parliamentary election in less than a year, after two inconclusive elections in April and September.”

“Odeh expressed his reservations that Kahol Lavan may use the list as a means to form a unity government. ‘We don’t want to be the scarecrow who is used to frighten Likud or right-wing parties,’ he said. In past weeks, Odeh has expressed that he would like to bring the Arab public back into the circle of influence in Israeli politics, as was in the 1990s. He wants to end the political isolation of Israeli Arabs, which has been the case since the events of October 2000. The results of the recent election, he says, are an opportunity to do so.”

“According to the poll, both blocs remain at a stalemate of 56 seats, with Yisrael Beytenu remaining kingmaker. The poll also revealed that Gantz beats Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 46% to 40% as to who is preferred to serve as prime minister if there is a unity government, with 14% not expressing a preference. Some 37% of those polled believe that Netanyahu would be to blame if another election is called, 30% believe that Gantz and Netanyahu would equally be to blame and 21% said they would blame Gantz alone. Some 8% said that no one would be to blame and 4% did not know.”

“After philanthropists protested Jewish federations’ denial of their desire to donate money to a group critical of Israel, the New Israel Fund is creating a new pipeline for philanthropists to support it and other progressive groups, the Forward has learned. An American charity whose mission is to direct funding to liberal groups that push for change in Israel and the Palestinian territories, the New Israel Fund is unveiling its “Progressive Jewish Fund” on October 23, designed especially for liberals leery of their local federation deciding that they can’t donate their own money to the charity of their choice. ‘People engaged in American Jewish life are being told, “The tent doesn’t include the things that you want to do,” said NIF CEO Daniel Sokatch’.”