web analytics
December 3, 2016 / 3 Kislev, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’

Weeks before Demolition, Still No Cabinet Decision on Amona

Monday, November 28th, 2016

The Netanyahu Security Cabinet ended an overnight meeting early Monday morning without a conclusion as to the future of Amona, in Samaria.

Amona is a community of some 40 Jewish families in Samaria, slated by the Supreme Court for demolition on Dec. 25. The Ministerial Legislative Committee has decided unanimously to submit for the Knesset’s approval the Regulations Act compelling Arab claimants against Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria to accept market value for their land rather than force the demolition of the community – especially in cases when the Israeli government had been involved in establishing said communities.

The Knesset passed the bill in its initial form last week, with a majority of 58 to 51. Now a joint committee made up of the Constitution, Law and Justice and the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committees, chaired by MK Nissan Slomiansky (Habayit Hayehudi), is hectically busy amending and preparing the bill for a second vote at the Knesset plenum.

But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud) and Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman (Yisrael Beiteinu) are still doubtful about the chances of the Regulations Act to pass muster at the Supreme Court.

A representative of Attorney General Avichai Madelblit told the joint committee last week that her office views the bill as inherently illegal and expects it to be knocked down on “constitutional grounds,” despite the fact the Israel does not have a constitution.

But Chairman Slomiansky declared that the new bill is dealing with issues that are at the heart of the Israeli democracy. “After 50 years, it’s time for the legislator to deal with our 450,000 representatives countrywide whose status is still suspended.”

David Israel

Responding to Meretz Petition, State Tells Court Rabbi Karim Does Not Believe in Raping Enemy Women

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2016

The State on Tuesday responded to a petition served by Meretz against the appointment of Rabbi Eyal Karim as IDF Chief Rabbi, saying the Chief of Staff has picked Karim believing he is the right man at the right time for the job — based on his abilities, knowledge and military background.

Col. Rabbi Eyal Moshe Karim, head of the Rabbinate Dept. at the IDF Military Rabbinate, also served as commander of the paratrooper division’s special forces. In July he was picked by Chief of Staff Gabi Eizenkot to become IDF Chief Rabbi. But then the Israeli media discovered a few “controversial” legal opinions authored by Karim in the online Orthodox news website Kipa. Written as halakhic responsa, Karim’s passages included a reference to the status of a captive enemy woman in time of war, which the Torah deals with from within the socio-political milieu of the second millenium BCE. He also discussed the halakha’s view on women’s military service and on homosexuality.

Needless to say, Karim’s opinions, written some 14 years ago in the context of a discussion involving Orthodox readers, did not go down well with Israeli leftwingers such as Meretz Chairwoman Zehave Galon. Meretz appealed the appointment to the Supreme Court, which suspended it pending an explanation regarding the differences between Israel 3,000 years ago and today.

In its response on Tuesday, the State noted that Rabbi Karim’s responsa were prefaced with a proviso that these are not his legal rulings but rather his review of rabbinical law. Regarding the fact that the Torah permits nonconsenting sex with a captured enemy woman in time of war, the State assured the court that Rabbi Karim does not espouse this as a policy to be followed by IDF soldiers nowadays.

MK Motti Yogev (HaBayit HaYehudi) told Israel Radio on Tuesday that the Supreme Court once again overstepped its boundaries by rudely intervening in IDF appointment decisions. Yogev noted that so far the court has fought the legislative and executive branches and now has added the IDF to its list of targets. Yogev called on his colleagues in the Knesset to find way of stopping the court from uninvited interference in halakhic discussions.

Rabbi Karim is expected to start serving as IDF Chief Rabbi on Thursday, unless the court continues to block his appointment.

David Israel

Appointment of IDF Chief Rabbi Delayed by Court

Monday, November 21st, 2016

The appointment of Colonel Eyal Karim as the next IDF Chief Rabbi has been held up by the High Court of Justice.

The court issued a temporary injunction Monday against the appointment, and asked the rabbi to file a deposition clarifying his positions on the issues of homosexuality, women, and refusal of orders by IDF soldiers.

The move comes in the wake of past comments by the rabbi, and in response to a petition filed by the Meretz party against his appointment.

Chief Justice Miriam Naor said during a hearing on the matter that the Court wants to hear what e rabbi has to say about it, “What his position was then, what it is now, and whether he has changed his mind,” Ynet reported Monday.

In the past, the rabbi has expressed opposition to homosexuality (as does the Torah), military female enlistment in the current situation, and discussed the Torah laws regarding rape during wartime. His remarks, posted on the Kipa religious website, were taken out of context as has happened with many other rabbis who have taught classes on similar issues in the past.

“Col. Karim asks to clarify that his statement was issued as the answer to a theoretical question and not in any way whatsoever a question of practical Jewish law,” said the IDF Spokesperson’s Office in a response to the furor raised by Meretz and women’s groups over the rabbi’s remarks. “Rabbi Karim has never written, said or even thought that and IDF soldier is permitted to sexually assault a woman in war—anyone who interprets his words otherwise is completely mistaken. Rabbi Karim’s moral approach is attested by his years of military service in command, combat, and rabbinical positions in which he displayed complete loyalty to the values and spirit of the IDF, in particular the dignity of the person.”

Rabbi Karim, 59, is an alumnus of Bnei Akiva Nachalim and Yeshivat Ateret Cohanim. He has served as a combat paratrooper and as a commander of the elite reconnaissance unit prior to serving as head of the Rabbinate Department in the Military Rabbinate.

Hana Levi Julian

Haifa District Court Okays State Confiscation of Gaza-Bound Flotilla Vessel

Sunday, November 20th, 2016

by Ilana Messika The Haifa District Court agreed on Sunday to the government’s request to confiscate the Gaza-bound flotilla Marianne which tried to break the naval blockade around the Gaza Strip in June, 2015. The activists on the ship were arrested by the Israeli Navy and deported.

The confiscation is the first time an Israeli court has approved a confiscation request based on the 1864 Naval Prize Act, a British law regulating confiscation of pirate ships and bounty distribution.

After examining the legality of the Israeli blockade, the legality of the seizure of the ship by the navy and the grounds for confiscation, Justice Ron Sokol ruled, “The State of Israel fulfilled all its humanitarian obligations as required by the laws of war applicable at sea… The situation of the Gaza population does not justify annulling the naval blockade.”

“The Marianne sailed to Israel with the explicit intent of breaking the blockade, the owners (of the boat) knew about that goal and they knew the ship could be confiscated. And since this was the clear aim of the journey, there is indeed ground for confiscation,” Sokol concluded.

The Court also fined the respondents NIS 25,000 as compensation to the State of Israel.

The Marianne ship, which sailed from Greece with Arab Joint List MK Basel Ghattas on board, was part of the Swedish organization “Ship to Gaza” protest flotilla.

Israel first tried to confiscate a Gaza-bound ship, the Estelle, in August, 2013, following the ship’s attempt to bring concrete and toys to the enclave in the fall of the previous year. The government’s request was rejected by the Haifa District Court, and later by the Supreme Court in August, 2016, citing the 10-month delay between the apprehension of the ship and the time the State filed the confiscation petition.

Justice Ron Sokol, who also ruled on the Estelle case, wrote in the Marianne verdict, “The statute of limitations has not expired and the supplicant [Israel] has completed all preliminary requirements. I also find that the naval blockade imposed on Gaza waters fulfills all technical requirements related to imposing such a closure.”

The confiscation requests were part of an Israeli strategy aimed at discouraging flotillas from attempting to break through the blockade surrounding Gaza. Israel established the blockade after Hamas took over the Gaza Strip from Fatah.

This new ruling also follows on the heels of a 22-member European Union (EU) delegation to Gaza in early November, calling for the removal of the Gaza blockade.

“The EU calls for all the parties to take swift steps to produce a fundamental change to the political, security and economic situation in the Gaza Strip, including the end of the blockade and full opening of crossing points, while addressing Israel’s legitimate security concerns,” stated Ralph Tarraf, head of the EU delegation to the West Bank and Gaza.

TPS / Tazpit News Agency

Eight Crucial Things You Need to Know About the Amona Case

Sunday, November 20th, 2016

Yehuda Yifrach, Courts Editor for Makor Rishon, on Friday listed the eight most important and least known facts about the Amona case. If you haven’t read a rightwing Jewish publication in the last month, Amona is a community of some 40 Jewish families in Samaria, slated by the Supreme Court for demolition on Dec. 25. You can read some background material here.

1. Jordan had no right to parcel out lands
When the Amona case first reached the Supreme Court, a representative of the land registrar for the IDF Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) argued that despite the fact that the location was a bald and abandoned mountaintop, there existed documented parcels of land which had been registered by the Jordanian government as belonging to area sheiks and clans. However, as an invading and occupying power, Jordan had no right to award these lands. Jordan’s rule over the “West Bank” was not recognized by the vast majority of UN member states save for the UK and Pakistan, and so this local Arab “ownership” is based on a lie.

2. Only 0.5% of the Amona land is registered to private Arab owners
After the Supreme Court had ruled in their favor, anti-Israeli NGO Yesh Din, which has been at the forefront of the Lawfare attacks on the Jewish State, decided to sue for damages over the years of denied use of the parcels in question. The problem is that while the Supreme Court does not entertain evidence, lower courts do, and in Jerusalem Magistrate Court it was discovered that out of the nine Arab petitioners, seven own land that is entirely outside the Amona perimeter, and have had no problem working their land had they been so inclined. The remaining two owned only a sliver – about half an acre altogether, out of the 125 acres of the Amona territory – less than .5%. The remaining land is registered to names of non-existent people who do not appear in the 1967 census.

3. COGAT didn’t differentiate between the parcels with known and unknown ownership
Despite the above facts, the COGAT prosecution related to the parcels whose owners are unknown as being privately owned, declaring that some 15 acres in the southern part of the settlement belonged to real private owners. They then told the court that, in fact, there was no difference between the various parts of the community and that the half-acre that became 15 acres was, in effect, indistinguishable from the rest, and the entire community had to come down.

4. The Settlement Arrangements Act does not violate international law
Regarding the Settlement Arrangements Act, which the left, as well as senior Netanyahu cabinet officials, are saying violates international law, former Tel Aviv University president and international law expert Prof. Yoram Dinstein has argued that “when an occupier appropriates the power to legislate in an occupied territory, said power belongs to the occupying state and not to one of its organs (COGAT).” In a recent article, Prof. Dinstein has shown how international law is entirely indifferent regarding the particular mechanics of legislation in an occupied zone, be it the local general or be it the government that posted said general in said zone.

5. International law compels Israel to care for the rights of Jewish and Arab resident
Another popular argument against the Settlement Arrangements Act is that it violates international law because it sanctions the impounding of Arab owned land for the sake of a Jewish community. However, it has been noted that international law compels the occupier to care for the needs of all the civilians under its rule, Jews and Arabs alike, and the right of a government to expropriate private property for public use, with proper payment of compensation (eminent domain) is inherent in exerting such care.

6. The Settlement Arrangements Act is consistent with the pre-67 law in Judea and Samaria
This one is quite interesting.
Unbeknownst to many, the Settlement Arrangements Act is consistent with the legal systems that were in use in Judea and Samaria before 1967. Both Ottoman law and Jordanian law determine that in a case where a man built and planted in good faith land belonging to another, should the value of the construction exceed the value of the land, the land owner is compelled to receive compensation.

7. Israel legislates retroactively when needed
Another argument against the Settlement Arrangements Act is that it retroactively alters a court ruling. But the state of Israel regularly legislates retroactively, as in the amendment that reversed many hundreds of court sentences of Arab terrorists, to facilitate the Gilad Shalit deal with Hamas.

8. The Settlement Arrangements Act is not unconstitutional
Finally, the most crucial argument against the Settlement Arrangements Act is that it is unconstitutional – the constitution in this case being Israel’s Basic Laws. Setting aside the paradox whereby one Knesset law is inapplicable in the territories while the same Knesset’s basic laws are applicable – does Israel’s basic law really dictate that 40 families with their 200 children who have lived in Amona for 20 years be evicted to satisfy the alleged rights of two claimants who own less than .5% of the land and have never lived there? Has the court become so immoral as to be the enemy of its constituents without any foundation?

JNi.Media

Knesset Approves Arrangements Act in Preliminary Vote 58 – 50

Wednesday, November 16th, 2016

The effort to save the Jewish community of Amona from demolition and eviction has overcome its first big hurdle Wednesday afternoon, as the Knesset plenum passed the Arrangements Act by a vote of 58 to 50 with no abstention. The latest version of the bill, which now goes to deliberations in committee, lets the Arab claimants against Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria to hold their title to the land while receiving market value compensation for it. The new law applies strictly to lands impounded by the Israeli government and not disputes over land that was settled without government sanction.

Finance Minister and Chairman of Kulanu Moshe Kahlon was reportedly uncertain whether his party should support the coalition bill, despite the fact that they were bound by “coalition discipline.” Kahlon was, and continues to be anxious about the possibility of a clash between the government and Israel’s Supreme Court, which is invested in seeing Amona, alongside the rightwing coalition, being brought down to their knees come December 25, the day decreed by the court.

Habayit Hayehudi Chairman and Education Minister Naftali Bennett, as well as Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked and the entire national religious faction refused to negotiate either the wording or the timing of the new legislation, which had been approved by the government on Sunday.

A spokesman for Habayit Hayehudi told Srugim, “Interestingly, what the prime Minster hasn’t been able to do for an entire year we suddenly managed to do in three days.”

However, both Minister Kahlon and Coalition Chairman David Bitan (Likud) warned that the bill would be suspended should it meet resistance from the Supreme Court.

JNi.Media

Bennett: If Law to Save Amona Fails, We’ll Stop Voting with Netanyahu Coalition

Wednesday, November 16th, 2016

As the Arrangement Act, compelling Arab claimants against government initiated Jewish settlements to accept market value for their lands, comes up for an initial vote at the Knesset plenum, two coalition partners — Kulanu and Habayit Hayehudi — have accused Prime Minister Netanyahu and Coalition Chairman MK David Bitan (Likud) of attempting to sabotage the vote. Bitan announced on Tuesday that there may be some difficulties in rustling support for the bill.

In response, Habayit Hayehudi faction informed Bitan that should the coalition partners not honor the coalition discipline rule and help defeat the government-supported legislation, Habayit Hayehudi would no longer vote in support of future coalition bills.

The threat was intended to pressure Likud to make sure all the coalition partners indeed show up to support the bill. As of Tuesday night, there have been rumors that Kulanu and the Haredi parties were considering a no-show during the vote. Now it appears those rumors were manufactured on behalf of the PM, who never was in favor of the proposed law.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court rejected a coalition request to postpone the demolition of Amona, in Samaria, on December 25.

David Israel

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/bennett-if-law-to-save-amona-fails-well-stop-voting-with-netanyahu-coalition/2016/11/16/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: