--In a fascinating Op-Ed that gives great information about the High Court's rulings' connections to the beginning of the settler movement, Yedioth's top political commentator Nahum Barnea gives a radical suggestion to the High Court justices on dealing with settlement related petitions.

---

You Must Be Kidding #1:  You Must Be Kidding #2: 
Israeli forces detained Abd al-Fattah al-Fakhouri, a 31-year-old Palestinian man in East Jerusalem, the day before his wedding because Hamas flags waved at pre-wedding festivities.**

The Wisdom of the Israeli Occupation (Amira Hass, Haaretz+) Reality shows that Israelis who believe in the rule 'don’t do unto others what you don’t want others to do unto you' are of unsound mind, while those who support plunder are the wise ones. 
Like a baby in a diaper - The day that the High Court leaves the Territories (Nahum Barnea, Yedioth) Last week the Knesset passed in a preliminary hearing the Regularization Bill that will pave the way for legalizing settlement outposts built on land that isn't theirs. Netanyahu and Kahlon spoke against it but voted for it. The non-ideological right-wing, such as Netanyahu and Kahlon, is praying now that by the third reading a magic solution will be found that will satisfy the settler lobby or that the High Court will strike the bill down...I suggest to the justices a radical idea: reexamine the relationship between the High Court and the (Palestinian) Territories. The fateful decision after the Six Day War (1967) that the State will not oppose a petition by a resident of the Territories was seen by retired chief justice Meir Shamgar as important and right because it allowed efficient judicial supervision of the army's operations and encouraged Palestinian recognition of Israeli institutions. The decision integrated with the no-less-dramatic High Court decision in 1979. The Begin government reached a wink-agreement with the settlement leaders of Gush Emunim: six settlements will be established on the edges of army bases in the West Bank. One of those settlements was Beit El. It was established on private (Palestinian) land. The landowners petitioned the High Court. The state was represented by Dorit Beinish and Gabriel Bach, both future High Court justices. They claimed that the settlers are like soldiers - they, their wives, and their children are vital for security. The judges were not told a word about the political agreement with Gush Emunim. The ruling released the state from the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit settling populations in occupied land. "The decision closed the door on any possibility of attacking a principled attack on the legality of settlements in the Territories," wrote Michal Shaked, the biographer of then chief justice, Moshe Landau. Landau justified the ruling saying that the occupation was temporary. "The problem could arise during fateful international negotiation with the Israeli government," wrote Landau. "Any expression of opinion by the court in this sensitive issue won't harm or help." The decision in the petition spurred an opposite process. it opened the doors for massive settling and turned the occupation into something permanent. The High Court was a senior collaborator in the wink policy [let things pass without acknowledging that they aren't okay - OH], which the Israeli governments led. The High Court justices were the tailors of the new king's clothes. Since then, in anything regarding the settlements, the High Court is an armored vest and babysitter of the governments of Israel. The governments give in to right-wing pressures, violate the law and afterward attack the High Court in that it is trying to return them to the rule of law. That's what is supposed to happen with the Regularization Bill...I suggest an alternative to the Justices. This is what to write in your court ruling: "Twenty years ago the court reached decisions that were good for their time. In the meantime, the situation has changed: it is the 50th anniversary of the occupation and negotiations cannot be seen in the horizon. The validity of the grounds that motivated the High Court to enter the Territories have expired. If the Knesset decides to annex territories, we will answer them: That's our obligation. In the meantime, we withdraw." The ruling will disrupt the plans. The government will be forced to deal with the settler pressures without the High Court serving as a cushioning. The (Palestinian) petitioners and the NGOs that help them will look for help at the International Criminal Court at The Hague and in the international community. The High Court will no longer cause Ministers Shaked and Levine to lose sleep. The right-wing will feel that it finally is in control. The feeling will be like a baby in a diaper: In the beginning it will be warm and comfy, and then it will be cold and wet.
Settlers Failing to See the Big Picture in East Jerusalem (Nir Hasson, Haaretz+) Silwan will not be Judaized, and the Palestinians aren’t going anywhere. 
Occupational hazard: When Netanyahu defames the media, unimportant men call the police on them (Ron Kaufman, Maariv) In the old world there were rules. You want to silence a journalist? File a civil suit, lose, and start again. Today, it turns out, they send four police officers and one dog to his house to search for drugs. 
The Minister of Israel's ultra-Orthodox (Haaretz Editorial) By putting the brakes on a bill seeking to silence mosques, ultra-Orthodox Minister Yaakov Litzman created the impression he sought solidarity with Muslim worshippers. On Sunday, he proved just how mistaken that impression was. 
A prayer for silence, for Muslims and for all (Ben-Dror Yemini, Yedioth/Ynet) The bill to limit muezzin calls is turning into another religious war, in which the Israeli Left is automatically siding with the provocateurs; however, the main victims of the ear-splitting loudspeakers—a rather recent addition—are other Muslims. 
Time for Israel's Attorney General to Surface (Raviv Drucker, Haaretz+) If Netanyahu is not allowed to deal with Bezeq, as the AG Avichai Mendelblit courageously decided, is he then allowed to purchase submarines? 
Another attempt to torpedo Netanyahu (Mati Tuchfeld, Israel Hayom) The purchase of submarines is a top strategic priority, and none of Netanyahu's critics have the knowledge or security clearance to voice an opinion about it.
In the Post-truth Era, Netanyahu Is the Inciter-in-chief (Avshalom Halutz, Haaretz+) Netanyahu provides on a regular basis half-truths, populist declarations and alternative news, while his main objective is almost always to demonize Arabs and the left-wing camp. 
On open ears: This is how the Israeli government is advancing the Jewish-Arab rift (Dr. Revital Amiran, Maariv) Trump’s appointments give a boost to the Muezzin Law initiative, whose goal is not to protect the peaceful sleep of the residents of Israel, but to move towards selective religious freedom in the country. 
Netanyahu Is Israel's Clinton, Not Its Trump (Amiel Ungar, Haaretz) The labored comparison between Trump and Netanyahu is not only politically stupid, it is wrong. And the liberal charge of racism against both Trump and Netanyahu is entirely hypocritical. 
Trump's election forces American Jews to choose a new direction (Avihu Sofer, Maariv) The crossroads that American Jews are at is an opportunity to strengthen the weak connection between them and the State of Israel and make us all one Jewish nation. (The writer is a lecturer of political science at Haifa University and runs the Lobby for the Unity of the Jewish People.) 
Culture Wars: Hamilton Cast Fires First Shot in Conflict Israel Knows Only Too Well (Don Futterman, Haaretz+) Donald Trump should take a look at Israeli minister Miri Regev to see how to really threaten artists and dictate a national cultural agenda. 
The Arab World Exists Without Corruption (Odeh Bisharat, Haaretz+) Why? Because the ruler is also the rich owner.
The Regularization Law: Those who supported Oslo today oppose making judicial order in the Territories (Dr. Haim Misgav, Maariv) … The Regularization Bill needs to become law. Initially, the territories that Rabin spoke of, Area C, in which the (settlement) "blocks" are located. Because in any case, it will become part of the State of Israel, so why do not to them what Menachem Begin did to the Golan Heights? In the agreement that the Knesset approved, it was explicitly defined which territories will be under the the civil and security control of the Jewish state. Annexation would not hurt the demographic character of the Jewish state. The vision of "two states" never materialized, and Rabin’s view did not have anything material. So this is the time to make the necessary legal changes. 
Israel's Supreme Court Wants Amona Demolished. Where Are the Palestinian Plaintiffs? (Moshe Arens, Haaretz+) They should explain how they came into possession of the land on which the outpost was built, but they’re playing the role of phantom.