By Bill Narvey, Jewish Israel News & Views
April 20th, 2012?
Some Thoughts on Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman’s Proposed Bill to Add a 15th Law to ?Israel’s Existing 14 Basic Laws
On April 19th, 2012, Ted Belman posted a brief article by Jonathon Lis entitled Israel’s Justice ?Minister defends bill allowing MKs to bypass High Court. Lis’ article briefly described ?Neeman’s proposed bill and made some reference to the controversy it has generated between ?Neeman and his supporters and Israel’s left wing. Belman prefaced this article with his own ?comment, all of which is posted under the title In a democracy, power rests with the people ?and not the Courts
Belman sees some parallels between Canada’s efforts to repatriate its constitution from Britain ?which until that event occurred, had sole and final authority when it came to any constitutional ?amendment, Canada’s notion of Quebec being a distinct society and Neeman’s effort to ?incorporate a new 15th law into Israel’s 14 Basic Laws, which appears primarily concerned with ?enshrining a balance between government’s/ Knesset’s power and authority on the one hand ?and Israel’s Supreme Court on the other.?
Neeman’s proposed 15th Basic Law also appears to seek to give sole authority to the ?government/Knesset when it comes to policy given the force of law to address and deal with ?certain internal and external challenges of critical importance to Israel’s security and well ?being.?
While there may be some parallels Belman has alluded to, they are substantively different both ?in intent and the historical and present circumstances Neeman is seeming to address and deal ?with.?
Two similar circumstances in Canada and one in the U.S. that will be later dealt with, do ?coalesce in some measure with what Neeman is seeking to achieve in relation to curbing the ?power and authority of Israel’s liberal-left leaning activist court and enabling Knesset to again ?pass a law that will be valid in spite of that same law being ruled unconstitutional by Israel’s ?Supreme Court.?
?1.? The Patriation of the Canadian Constitution and the Idea of Quebec being a Distinct ?Society
The Canadian historical political/societal experience, situation and circumstances back in the ??1970’s when the effort to patriate (not re-patriate) its constitution from Britain differ markedly ?from Israel’s.?
The initiative to patriate Canada’s constitution was under then Liberal PM Trudeau, a federalist. ?Part of his initiative was to first have a Bill of Rights, dealing more specifically with federal ?rights and powers vs. provincial rights and powers as well as individual rights agreed on ?between the Federal government and the provinces. On achieving that, Britain was called on to ?amend Canada’s constitution to incorporate that Bill of Rights into the Constitution and then to ?relinquish any authority of the new and expanded constitution in favor of Canada.?
The patriated Canadian constitution did give power and authority to the judicial branch of ?government to rule on the constitutionality of Federal and provincial laws, with the ultimate ?arbiter of the constitutionality of Canada’s laws resting with Canada’s Supreme Court.?
The Canadian Constitution does not give Quebec constitutional authority to proclaim itself and ?be a legally recognized distinct society. It has however, been so politically recognized by the ?Federal and other provincial governments in many ways. The roadblock to so constitutionally ?recognizing such status for Quebec was that the other 9 provinces feared Quebec would use ?that constitutional recognition and the power and authority it entailed to gain rights and ?privileges not available to the other provinces. Further, the concern was that Quebec would ?use such constitutional authority to solidify the position Quebec separatists were then ?advancing based on a sense of Quebec nationalism that began in the 1950’s and grew from ?there and to that end, have a constitutional basis to separate from Canada and declare itself an ?independent state.?
The consequences of Quebec separating were enormous and threatened Canada’s ability in ?such circumstances to remain a nation.?
Federal initiated efforts to have the Canadian constitution further amended after patriation to ?incorporate a “distinct society” provision in favor of Quebec by way of 1st the Meech Lake ?Accord and thereafter, the Charlottetown Accord, failed. To this day has not signed onto the ?Canadian constitution, though it practically recognizes that authority when it serves their ?purposes.?
The separatist movement, while still alive in Quebec, has lost much of its steam as Quebec has ?found that it has gained much advantage and privileges under our Federalist system.?
As regards Israel being a Distinct Society, that is covered in one or more of the 14 Basic Laws ?that declare Israel to be a Jewish and Democratic state. ?
Issues as regards Palestinian nationalism and self determination differ in just about every ?material particular. ?
Quebec was since 1967, part of Canada and in the 1970’s – 1980’s was actively seeking to ?separate and be an independent nation on land it inhabited. The history and issues that ?presaged and remained in that regard was far different than the history of Palestinians and the ?rise of their own nationalism and desire of self determination. ?
No foreign nation was pushing Quebec to separate for the purpose of harming and destroying ?the rest of Canada, though such separation would in the result be harmful, if not destructive of ?the remaining provinces ability to remain a Canadian nation.?
The situation as regards Palestinians, their intractable hatred and enmity of Jews and Israel and ?their 1st allowing themselves to be the witting tool of the Arab nations in their effort to weaken ?and ultimately destroy Israel in stages , but more recently taking on that goal for themselves is ?a vastly different historical situation than contrasted with Quebec’s desire to be a “distinct ?society”. ?
?2.? Ideological Judicial Activism of the Israeli Supreme Court
Whether Canada’s Supreme Court should have that power and authority over Parliament and ?provincial legislators, appears not to have been a big issue. Our judiciary historically were ?seen as relatively impartial when it came to ruling on legal issues that came before it.?
This reality of Canada’s judiciary being less influenced by political ideology and more faithful to ?jurisprudence and legal principles, was then and still is the Canadian reality which still stands in ?stark contrast to the American experience where Americans and their governments have ?created an ideological battleground within their judicial system right up to and including their ?Supreme Court.?
As regards Neeman’s proposed 15th Basic Law, it appears to be an effort to correct an ?imbalance as between the legislative power and authority of the Knesset and Israel’s judiciary ?and Supreme Court in particular. ?
In terms of the essential proposal that the Knesset be legislatively empowered to re-enact a law ?previously found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it is an interesting after the fact ?approach, whereas the Canadian constitution has a before the fact approach to enabling it to ?pass legislation that in some fashion does offend Canada’s constitution.?
To that end, the Canadian constitution has what has been referred to as the “notwithstanding ?clause”.?
Simply put, the government can pass legislation that offends the constitution in some particular, ?provided that law specifies that the law is passed, notwithstanding some particular ?constitutional right or power. Such notwithstanding clause legislation applies only to certain ?constitutional rights and powers and it is to be time limited. The government of course at the ?expiry of the temporary enactment, can if the situation, that law was intended to address ?remains, can again pass the law for another temporary period of time.?
It seems Canada’s notwithstanding clause would be a more practical and efficient way to deal ?with the concerns Neeman is addressing. ?
Neeman’s proposal contemplates having to invest time and effort in the Knesset to get a law ?passed that the government deems necessary to address some critical issue or challenge, only ?to have to revisit that whole exercise if that law is ruled invalid by the Supreme Court and the ?critical issue remains.?
If Neeman were to amend his proposed bill to incorporate a “notwithstanding clause”, then the ?government/Knesset could deal with the wisdom of a law that a particular situation demanded, ?but which law in order to address the situation, would be contrary to right that would otherwise ?be protected. ?
Not only would such “notwithstanding clause” approach save the government a lot of time and ?effort, it would drastically reduce delay in dealing with an extant problem that needed ?immediate attention.?
The 2nd concern Neeman’s proposal seeks to address is that the Israeli Supreme Court has been ?accorded ultimate authority to determine the legality or illegality of a Knesset enactment. If ?the Supreme Court were balanced and not ideological as Canadian courts are in the main, the ?problem Neeman seeks to deal with would not be nearly as great and perhaps never would ?have arisen
The problem however is that the Israeli Supreme Court has gone beyond the traditional role of ?interpreting and applying the law as it is. Instead, it has been in the business of making new ?law and as such has earned its reputation as being an activist court. ?
Ordinarily, enactment of laws is the sole purview of the legislative branch of government. The ?role of the courts is to determine whether that Knesset enacted law is constitutional or lawful, ?based on jurisprudential analysis and past legal precedent.?
The Supreme Court, before known as the Barak court and now the Dorit Beinish court have ?been often accused, mostly by conservatives and the right, over successive past Israeli ?governments as being an ideologically liberal-left leaning activist court that has subverted the ?Knesset’s power and authority to make new law. ?
Even under PM Olmert, in spite of his being left leaning, he too found Israel’s Supreme Court ?too activist for his taste and too often seeming to be involved in subverting certain ?government/Knesset efforts to pass laws that were intended as an extension of government ?policy to meet and deal with internal or external certain challenges. ?
Olmert appointed a new Justice Minister, Friedmann to deal with the problem, but whatever ?Friedman may have done to restrain the Barak court’s judicial activism, obviously was not ?enough. ?
Earlier this year, the government sought to pass law that would allow the government to have ?some minor input in the appointment of new judges to the Supreme Court. That effort too, ?does not seem to have been proceeded with by the Knesset, due to objections by the court and ?the efforts liberal-left objectors.?
Now, Justice Minister Neeman is taking a run at the problem the Israeli government and ?Knesset have with being undermined by the Supreme Court’s judicial activism to the extent the ?government and Knesset seek to put policy it deems necessary as regards particular internal ?and external challenges, into law.?
As regards the issue of judicial activism, as noted in the U.S., the judicial system, especially at ?the appellate levels including the Supreme Court, have been and remain an ideological ?battleground. ?
Confirming that situation that marks the U.S. Judicial system, the media, relying on informed ?pundits and legal scholars all have weighed into how the Supreme Court will rule as regards ?the recent hearing into the constitutionality of Obama Care. ?
All predict the court will rule 5 to 4 in favor or against the constitutionality of Obama Care. The ?deciding vote in that regard is predicted to fall to SC Justice Kennedy, who has been known to ?swing to the liberal left or conservative right side of the bench on various issues, unlike the ?other 8 justices that can virtually be counted on to equally divide between voting on the liberal ??– left or conservative – right side of an issue.?
The situation of judicial activism based on ideological lines is exacerbated in Israel because the ?Israeli Supreme Court has been under past governments, weighted with liberal-left leaning ?judges. ?
The process of judicial appointment has been imprudently left in the hands of the court. Thus ?the Supreme Court has been vested with the ability to determine itself which judges will be ?appointed and in that fashion, assure that the Israeli Supreme court remains a self perpetuating ?dynasty of ideologically liberal-left activists, just as former Chief Justice Barak ensured it was ?and would be.?
It is no wonder that the left scream that Neeman’s proposed 15th Basic Law will be the death of ?democracy. ?
It is of course hysterical hyperbole. The liberal-left know however, in their head and gut, if ?Neeman’s proposed bill for a 15th Basic Law is passed in the Knesset, they will lose a very ?significant advantageous edge they have had to advocate, undermine, weaken and sometimes ?defeat government policy and efforts to legislate those policies, that offend their liberal-left ?ideological sensibilities and agendas.?
The liberal left thus does not want a balance struck between the power and authority of ?government/Knesset and the Supreme Court. ?
What the liberal-left want is to keep their edge and have that edge continue to be protected by ?a liberal-left activist Supreme Court. ?
Further, the liberal-left do not want government/Knesset to be have ultimate power and ?authority in establishing policy, enforced by the weight of law, that seeks to deal with critical ?internal and external challenges to Israel’s best interests, her character as a Jewish and ?democratic state, her well being, security and indeed national aspirations that are existentially ?threatened. ?
The reason for the liberal-left’s concern in this regard is that they have before challenged the ?government/Knesset’s position in that regard. If the government/Knesset gain such authority ?and power over the Supreme Court, the liberal-left fear they will lose their ability to see their ?own ideological dreams for themselves and Israel realized. ?
Those then are the power struggle battle lines drawn between Neeman and his supporters of ?his effort to address and correct the imbalance between government/Knesset and the Israeli ?Supreme Court and those on the Israeli liberal-left that don’t want balance because such ?balance would mean giving up the significant edge they have that has been until now protected ?by the ideologically liberal-left leaning Supreme Court. ?
Bill Narvey
@ the phoenix:
Do you like fried chicken? Will trade!!!!
@ yamit82:
Where did the gold come from to make the golden calf? There was obviously gold amongst the Israelites. Perhaps they scoffed it on their way out of Egypt. Who knows?
@ honeybee:
Making jewelry was one of my hobbies… 🙂
At your service, m’lady?
@ yamit82:
Sarah was an angry woman not mad. Hagar was younger and better looking.
My history channel is showing the “Vikings II” next Thursdays, I prefer my Viking ancestors to the modern day pusillanimous Swedes.
@ yamit82:
One thing we Jewish Girls always have our Jewelry. Did you see the article in the Times Of Israel about ancient chach of silver earing’s. My love of Indian and Mexican jewelry has enslaved me for life . To night I am frying yet another chicken to pay off some bracelet or necklace.
@ honeybee:
“All that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice,…” Gen 21;12-13
@ yamit82:
Upon further thought !!!!!! Mad fits
@ honeybee:
Wasn’t sure whether mad was a typo or some of your sardonic wit?
dove Said:
Eh!!! What would Hebrew slaves be doing with Jewelery of the precious valuable kind? Where did any of the Hebrew slaves get all their gold and silver from. They all escaped Egypt by the skin of their sandals and they managed to stash away such wealth? Did they collect back wages for 250 years of slavery?
@ yamit82:
Thank you for not noticing I wrote The Almighty used mad women as a vehicle for the renewal of life. Even if its true.
@ the phoenix:
Consent of the Governed
As the joke goes, the Ten Commandments are not suggestions. The foundation of democracy is popular sovereignty, while religion is a body of non-negotiable demands from on-high. The Torah’s portrayal of the relationship between Man and God is not of a relationship between equals in power. It is however, a relationship in which God voluntarily concedes nay invites parity with His creation. It is a relationship in which God restrains His power and His prerogatives to give Man freedom.
Developing the theme that divine authority can only be offered and not demanded, the Talmud concludes the revelation at Sinai was blemished, and required supplement by a later, freer acceptance at the time of Ester.
“The Jews stood beneath the mountain.” (Exodus 19:17)
“God held the mountain over their heads and said, “Either you accept the Torah, or this is your grave.” (Talmud, Shabat 88a)
“The Jews confirmed and undertook upon themselves …” (Ester 9:27)
“They confirmed what they had already undertaken, since their previous commitment had been under duress.” (Midrash, Esther)
If God’s authority rests on human acceptance, it will be no surprise that subordinate authorities require communal ratification. The failure to grasp this truth was the proximate cause of the fatal and historic division between the 10 tribes and the northern kingdom. Read More
@ dove:
Women are closer to the Almighty because The Almighty has made has mad women his vehicle of in which to renew human life.
@ the phoenix:
OR……you could be an optimist. The other nations preferred the power of ‘false gods’ and no idea what our G-d would eventually do to them. By that time it was too late. There was no turning back.
”
Our people experienced ‘both sides’. Under the ‘false gods’ it was horrible never ending persecution and death. When Hashem delivered us from the hands of Pharoah it was then that Hashem still gave us a choice and we chose Moses G-d. Even tho we had a relapse (the golden calf) it was a redeemable sin. I wouldn’t test Hashem by doing that again.
It has also been said that the women did not give their jewelrey for the golden calf. This may explain why women seem to have a closer connection to Hashem.
@ the phoenix:
Sounds like a deal. I have a used car you might be interested !
@ honeybee:
Not quite…. 🙁
Reread dove’s post:
This looks more like the bottom of the barrel to me…… 🙁
Which… Upon further thinking…. Might explain a thing or two…. 🙂
@ dove:
That’s the problem!!!!! Jews are second choice.
@ dove:
Its our DNA that connects us.
@ dove:
http://youtu.be/PkhPuH8G5Hg
Now I know….
@ the phoenix:
The Lord offered the Law to all nations; but all refused to accept it except Israel. Mek. Yitro, Pes. R. K. 103b, 186a, 200a
@ dove:
Huh?
@ yamit82:
Hashem did not choose us. We chose Hashem to be our G-d. We were not the first people that Hashem made the offer to.
@ honeybee:
It is our soul that connects us, not our physcial being.
@ dove:
If were not a race how is it that we can spot each other in a crowd. I like my Jewish features.
yamit82 Said:
YAMIT82 IS THE ROCKER. If could figure out my new computer I would send you some music. Such as: “I Love Rock and Roll”, “Rock Me Baby All Night Long” . Painting a landscape and listen to Leon Russell sing “Delta Queen”.
yamit82 Said:
Sounds interesting. But why the sad face “Rejoice and Be Glad”. My Mother always said “Jews are just like other people, only more so”.
@ yamit82:
I somewhat agree. 🙂 I don’t consider us a race tho – a people YES. Anyone can get grafted into the Jewish vine and become a Jew. No one can ‘become’ a black, or an Asian, or a native etc. You either are one or not. This was Hitlers claim – that we were a subhuman race that should be destroyed. As you know the gentile calls us a race because they see that we are ‘different’ and they don’t know how else to define it.
dove Said:
I agree.
I am a Jew and Jews are the most dysfunctional race the world has ever known. We need a national couch. I have to acknowledge that Hashem knew what he was getting when he chose us. 🙁
@ the phoenix:
Sometimes Yamit is a little off his rocker.
@ yamit82:
@ yamit82:
I will have to ‘dwellerize’ a bit my response…
agreed. but where are they???????
once again, agreed. question is WHY is it not done?
my reply, ‘from your mouth (keyboard) to God’s ears’, was in reference to THIS particular paragraph
there is no question about it! this is an abomination! and would cause every jew to turn away in disgust. (Exemptions: meretz, peace now, etc)
nonetheless, i join mr ross in his “j’accuse” of the hareidim…
as he has put it so well:
China Becomes Iran’s Largest Trade Partner
Iranian trade profits soaring as sanctions collapse
Report: Turkey Financing Top Global Terror Groups
Turkey becoming world’s leading terrorism finance hub
Iran Studying Israeli War Tactics
@ bernard ross:
Pentagon Contractors Exploring Business with Iran
Companies with more than $107B in DoD contracts eyeing Tehran
yamit82 Said:
Will the messiah do all their work for them too or will they expect G_D to do everything for them and they do nothing but eat the fruit?
They are the deciding factor and deciding against the jews.
They are the dividers of the Jewish people.
yamit82 Said:
My question is why are they in Israel if they do not believe? They should go back to Poland and wait for the memo.
yamit82 Said:
Yes, i saw this video when you sent it last time. they do not have to ascend the Mount, or even go near it to stop Muslims from using it or protest at Knesset to keep it under the Jewish sovereignty. Just send the numbers and make the demand. They are the deciding factor but they are deciding to reject them.
They cannot pretend to be a moral force for righteousness.
@ yamit82:
love the children are ready video
bernard ross Said:
They are waiting for the messiah?????
Now they have a problem as tens of thousands of Haredim live in the territories in places like Beitar Illit . mainly because of cheaper and subsidized housing. Jerusalem has become too expensive for most of them yet where they do live is considered safe from transfer as it is whithin the security wall adjacent to Jerusalem suburbs to the east.
It’s not the average haredi they will obey whatever their rebbe tells them. Convince their rebbes and the rest will follow so we are dealing essentially with a small group that needs convincing. I think eventually events will overcome and overtake their collective resistance. What events?????? Don’t know I’m no prophet or son of a prophet call it intuition not to be confused with dweller. 🙂
My question is why any orthodox Jew is still living in the exile and how they can justify it through scripture.
@ bernard ross:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bw-lJlyuqA
the phoenix Said:
Pleasssssssssssseeeee!!!!!!!!!!!
yamit82 Said:
They do not have to ascend the Mount: they can block access to Muslims and/or Jews without ascending. They can protest the knesset and BB weekly and demand the closing of the mount to all. Better it is shut to all than allow the Muslims to go up. What is their excuse for not Supporting YS?
yamit82 Said:
Splain me??????????
@ bernard ross:
It’s against halacha for a Jew (any Jew) to step foot on the Holy of Holies. Since nobody knows where exactly it is out of caution they banned going up on the mount.
Technically they are correct and we know with absolute certainty today most places where the Holy of Holies isn’t and can’t be, and those areas could be deemed safe. Then there is the problem of purification before going up by a mikva and not touching physically any other person who is not pure and contaminated…. Going up to the mount requires halachic preparation, you just don’t go up if you are a religious Jew. Personally I don’t think the religious rabbis want the competition by the restoration of the priests to there authority. Judaism with the temple would create religious divisions that don’t exist today. It’s the secular Jews who need the Temple more than today’s religious Jews of all stripes. Many of the religious Zionist Rabbis also forbid Jews from going up on the mount othere permit under certain conditions. Secular Jews have no religious barriers.
Listen to Walters explanation!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpk5p8X0sA8
Israeli Minister Bennett to BBC Host: ‘Would You Hand Over Half of Britain to Someone Who Keeps on Killing You?’
I’m getting to like this guys style.
yamit82 Said:
the Haredim are the problem, they do not want the MOunt or YS. If they wanted the Mount or YS it would already be in Israel’s hands.
Perhaps todays Haredim are yesterdays hellenists. Who destroyed the food to force them to fight or die? Perhaps this is what must be done to the haredim by todays zealots. Which Jews in ancient Israel are like todays Haredim? I cannot recognize them, perhaps they only existed for the diaspora.
The secular left would be irrelevant if the Haredim demanded the Mount and YS.
The Haredim are the problem, and the obstacle to the Mount and YS. Their lack of commitment is the deciding factor.
yamit82 Said:
If the rabbis sent every week a 100,000, which they have the power to do it would be all over. those haredi who consider it impure to ascend can block the entrance to others to ascend. Its time they stepped up to their responsibilities as Jews and do something because they eat the fruit and do nothing. G_d can chose the state or the secular to do his will as well as the Haredim. They were brought even without belief and made the land bloom. The haredim refuse to be part of anything and obstruct His will. the Jews are being ingathered by choice and by force; the land blooms. Who does the ingathering and who makes the land to bloom? the Haredim are arguing over who should do what and at what time G_D execute his will. While they argue it is happening around them and they ignore it. What else could be going on, how do they explain it? As for YS I cannot fathom what they are thinking.
yamit82 Said:
they do not need to support the state or even to support ascending, or to ascend the Mount: they can block the muslims or anybody from ascending the Mount as a first step. Better to shut it down than allow the Muslims to attend and bar the Jews.
They can demand to fight for eretz Israel without supporting the state by demnding their own units which I beleive the IDF does already. They only demand perks and avoidance.
I do not beleive it is their non support of the state what can be an excuse for their non support of the Mount,YS or helping other Jews in the struggle for the land in which they live and eat the fruit. Why are they even in Israel if they reject the the idea that Hashem is ingathering the Jews? Is their only religious obligation to read the Torah and ignore the land they walk upon but do nothing in return?
Imagine if Moses brought the Jews to Israel and they went into and resided upon the land, ate the fruits thereof and then refused to help their fellow Jews fight the Canaanites for the land but had no problem staying if their fellow Jews fought, died and won the land for them to live upon. They take what G_d gives them, eat the fruits and give back only words. Their action belies their pious pretensions.
@ yamit82:
Hmmm….
ANOTHER eureka moment…
I must admit,I NEVER looked at it this way…
All I could say about this post is…. “From your mouth (keyboard) to God’s ears”!
@ yamit82:
The soldier in the video you posted drop dead good looking!!!! Is that HOW you look!!!OMG
@ the phoenix:
Feiglin understands the principle but is on the wrong track as to method. So they had a long overdue debate in the Knesset. So what? Nothing has or will change by a debate in the Knesset. Send 5000-10000 or more Jews forcing their way onto to the mount and there will be no Peace Process, no giving up land. It will encourage other Jews sympathetic to join the movement and force the government to acquiesce to the rights of the Jews.
Might ignite another intifada and condemnation from Muslims and christians. Israel should care what that stinking pathetic little king in Jordan says? He needs us more than we need him, without us he is toast. Time to end the fiction that Jordan is a real country.
No need to fight over every hilltop and building in Y&S concentrate on retaking sovereignty on the Temple mount and there will never again be a peace process. Arabs get testy drive em out or kill em.
Understand this; a relatively small group of zealous Jews can topple any government and or peace initiative that reduces our land to us and our rights in the land of Israel and the Temple mount is the match and trigger to the gun of zealous Jews. Why do you think the government is so fearful of Jews demanding their rights over the Temple Mount? Then those like Ted and others can bring out their arguments about the legal rights of the Jews to the Land of Israel. Then you will see who are our real friends if any and force the Jews in the diaspora to take a stand with the Jews of Israel or against.
A country that cedes Jewish rights to non Jews over the Temple and bars and restricts Jews and Jewish rights is a government that has no right to call itself a Government of a Jewish State. For them Israel is a place for Jews to hang out devoid of the most basic precepts of being a Jew. These non-Jews will go to the mat with you over rights for gays to parade themselves half naked on the streets of Jerusalem.
You wonder why the Haredim do not support the state?
http://www.timesofisrael.com/debate-on-temple-mount-worship-rocks-knesset/
Solutions:
Reestablishing the Great Sanhedrin and Gerusia?
Half the Public Wants to See Holy Temple Rebuilt
Half the Israeli public wants the Holy Temple to be rebuilt, according to a poll commissioned by the Knesset Television Channel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pHXZyNNes0