Highway 443: No less of a threat, but it matters not to B'Tselem

Back in 2000-2001, there was a number of deadly attacks on Israeli motorists on Highway 443, which links the Israeli city of Modi'in with Jerusalem.  In response, the Israel Defense Forces closed it to Palestinian traffic.  The deadly attacks ceased (though not for lack of trying).  Then, at the end of 2009, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the IDF to re-open 443 to Palestinian traffic.  Why?  Because of a lawsuit filed by B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization.  They contended that maintaining the restriction on Palestinian traffic amounted to a violation of freedom of movement.

443 will re-open to Palestinian traffic this week (May 23).

B'Tselem, of course, was correct.  The prohibition did limit Palestinians' freedom of movement.  But so did the shooting attacks limit the freedom of movement of their victims.  Forever.  But to people like those at B'Tselem, the ramifications of their actions did not deter them.  Will they have to suffer the near-certain results of the road's opening?  Will their family members?  Highly unlikely.  Will the Supreme Court justices?  No.  But this ruling must have made both B'Tselem and the Supreme Court feel great about themselves, as they stood up for Palestinian human rights.

Here's the self-contradictory problem with the Supreme Court's ruling.  They gave the IDF five months to make security arrangements.  Does it not stand to reason that if you need to make such preparations for opening up a road to Palestinian traffic, that there is something inherently problematic?  Why is it not as simple as removing the roadblocks?  By giving the IDF much time for new security arrangements, the Court was tacitly acknowledging that there is a continued high risk for fresh attacks on the road.  Neither B'Tselem nor the Court claimed that the threat was any less from the Palestinians, just that their freedom of movement was being hindered.  Yet they proceeded with subjecting thousands of Israelis to potentially deadly attacks, all in the name of justice and human rights.

Was it unfair to the peaceful Palestinian villagers, who only want to get from Point A to B securely, that they were also prohibited from using 443?  Yes, it was.  But it is not like the road was closed after one attack.  There were four shooting attacks between December 2000 and August 2001, causing five fatalities.  In other words, the Palestinians had four chances.  That is more than enough.  How many deadly shooting attacks will take place before the IDF closes it again, Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding?  Two?  Five?  Ten?  Do the Justices and B'Tselem even care?

I can only think of two possible rationalizations on B'Tselem and the Supreme Court's part:

1. They did not consider the real possibility that shooting attacks will resume on 443.  Granted, this possibility renders both parties incredibly naive at best, and criminally negligent at worst.  But this possibility makes them look much better than option #2.
2. They do not care.  It matters not to them that more Israelis are almost certainly going to die unnecessarily.  What is more important to them is to show the world how committed they are to their warped sense of justice and human rights.

Never mind that no Palestinian died due to the road being closed.  Inconvenienced?  Certainly.  But to remove this inconvenience, B'Tselem and the Supreme Court have practically sentenced an unknown number of innocent victims to an untimely death.  And when an attack inevitably does happen, if they even express regret, they will not change their position on the issue.  In their world, a fanciful notion of reality always trumps the actual facts on the ground.  They will sleep well, convinced they have done good for the world.

And due to the "good" they will have done, innocent Israelis will pay for it with their blood.