The factors responsible for the Mount Miron disaster acted in good faith.
Each was convinced that it was the other's responsibility, so everything was fine.
Those responsible for the chilling affair of the prison guards and the security prisoner acted in good faith, and did not imagine that such an affair was happening under their noses.
The former Prime Minister, Netanyahu, acted in good faith and thought that friends could give gifts to public servants without limit of amount and without limit of time.
Even the settlers in the Mitzpe Kerami settlement, between Ramallah and Jericho (which is on the list of illegal outposts that was transferred by the Prime Minister and Likud leader at the time, Ariel Sharon, to the Bush administration, as intended for eviction), never imagined that they might be settling on private Palestinian land.
Why would they think that?
All in all, they decided to settle there, on their own accord, with the assessment that, in the end, the government would put up with their actions, and they could not even guess that they were moving onto land owned by someone else.
How lucky we are that the Hebrew law established the "market regulation", especially for cases where a person sells an asset that belongs to another.
The regulation seeks to harm as little as possible both the real owner of the property, and the person who sold it without being the owner, and its main principle is the "good faith" principle.
If the judge is convinced that the seller of the property was not aware that he was not the real owner - he must find a solution that compensates not only the real owners but also those who own the property and sell it even though it is not theirs.
This is certainly an ancient and beautiful principle, which takes into account rare situations where both parties are right and both may be wronged.
The problem is that "good faith" is difficult to prove, and it is used in many cases that have nothing to do with good faith.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court accepted the claim of the Palestinian owners that it was their private land, and recently reversed its ruling, allowing the settlers to remain where they are, based on the principle of "good faith".
But in the whole settlement issue there is nothing resembling good faith.
Since the Six-Day War, the governments of Israel have adopted an out-of-the-box claim, according to which it is permissible to violate the Fourth Geneva Convention in the context of establishing settlements in the territories we occupied.
why?
Because there was no sovereign in the territory recognized by the world in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, therefore this territory should not be treated as an occupied territory and it is permissible to transfer the citizens of the occupying country to it, for the purpose of settlement.
The world did not accept the Israeli claim, but our court adopted it.
And he also stated, under the presidency of Meir Shamgar, that the entire kosher matter of the settlements will have to be discussed when Israel negotiates the permanent agreement, and in the meantime - it is possible to settle.
Many of the settlers see themselves as the direct heirs of the "Wall and Tower" settlers from 1936.
They established settlements around an antenna, around a labor camp or around archeological finds, under the nose of the "British Mandate Government", and turned what were supposed to be temporary settlements into permanent settlements, sometimes ignoring the government and sometimes completely against its opinion, but never in good intentions".
Israel has created legal structures that make it possible to receive distorted rulings such as in the case of Mitzpe Karim.
It is impossible to explain the application of this "market regulation" to any serious legal entity in the world.
It is impossible to explain the difference between legal and illegal settlements in terms of Israeli internal law.
We pay a not easy image price for the system we built, and this is one of the reasons (second only to the danger of us becoming a Jewish minority that will dominate the Palestinian majority) that oblige us to reach an agreement with the Palestinians as soon as possible, and put an end to the "good faith" that never existed and was not created.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us
