Read this text: "The Israel Lands Administration has begun studying the ramifications of the court ruling, which has created a complex reality, in the framework of which the administration will have to carry out an in-depth investigation of possible alternatives to the marketing of the lot that is the subject of the petition.
"The complexity of the matter and the examination of possible alternatives, under the circumstances that have been created, require the gathering of facts and figures that will necessitate professional assessments ... and their review by the most senior echelons, in order for the data to serve as a basis for an informed decision. In light of the above, the administration estimates that it will require about a year to make a decision ..."
Reminds you of Sir Humphrey Appleby from the BBC smash hit show "Yes, Minister", doesn't it?
It reads like satire, yet it isn't. This is (Haaretz's translation of) the text submitted to the Tel Aviv District Court earlier this month by the Israel Lands Administration, as part of an appendix to the IKEA Rishon Letzion case. The case concerns the disqualification of the Bronfman-Fisher group which won the tender to build a new IKEA outlet on the site, on the grounds that the Rishon Letzion Municipality had "fixed" or "tailored" the tender to the group's needs.
The ILA went into shock at the ruling, which means that the Bronfman-Fisher group can use the structure that it built on the site for a number of purposes - but not as a location for an IKEA branch, at least until the Supreme Court rules on the appeal filed by the group. The ILA can hardly courteously conceal its hope that the Supreme Court will cancel the District Court's ruling that disqualified the group's tender award.
In general, the ILA has been pushed into a corner, and there are only two explanations for its behavior: The ILA might have known what was happening and turned a blind eye. The District Court rejected this assumption, but opponents of the IKEA idea have appealed to the Supreme Court against the District Court's exemption of the ILA from collusion in this case. The second explanation is that the ILA behaved stupidly, did not know and did not understand that when commercial real-estate developers apply for tenders that involve industrial property, something strange that's worth investigating is going on.
No one should expect the ILA to grade itself on its behavior in this affair in the coming year while the decision is being deliberated. It is easier to quote Sir Humphrey.
