It is not only the IDF Chief Rabbi’s appointment that the Supreme Court sees itself authorized to postpone, it is also ready to destroy Eretz Yisrael and ruin the lives of Jewish families. Israel must make a choice.
It seems surreal, to say the least, that after the traumatic expulsion of thousands of Jews from their homes in Gush Katif, that Israel, the Jewish homeland, has been ordered by the Supreme Court to destroy Amona, a so-called ‘settlement’ in Eretz Yisrael and to expel the brave and devoted Jewish families who have lived there for decades from their homes .
Never mind that each new expulsion emboldens the implacable Arab enemies, whose raison d’etre is to destroy Israel entirely, to continue their nefarious terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli Jewish men women and children!
Never mind that countless Arabs who claim Jewish homes were built on “their property”(sic) are squatters who migrated to Israel seeking employment after the Jewish State was reborn, in 1948.
Never mind that no one has come forward to claim the land, except for 1 or 2 dunams out of 500 and that the granting of it to Jordanians by King Hussein was illegal.
Never mind that more than a few Arabs and the Palestinian Authority media have publicly declared that Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem re also “occupied territory” which belong to them, as do areas where some of the judges in Israel’s High Court of Justice who ordered the destruction of Amona now reside.
Should Arabs making such claims decide to seek legal action- will Israel’s Supreme Court also rule in their favor?
The Government of Israel’s past ill-fated decision to destroy Yamit, Gush Katif and other similar outrageous expulsions of idealistic Jews who built their homes and their lives in good faith in Medinat Yisrael did not bring ‘peace’.
Ironically, instead it launched a marked increase in Arab terrorist attacks.
But the ‘learned’ justices of Israel’s Supreme Court, in their present odious decision to destroy Amona, have not absorbed the lesson of the wise adage “He who does not learn from history, is doomed to repeat it.”
To my mind, there exits a much deeper and more significant aspect to the recent ruling concerning Amona as well as many other detrimental decisions handed down by Israel’s Supreme Court which are in direct conflict with Torah-true Judaism.
The Tanach the Bible upon which Israel bases its claim for sovereignty in our one Jewish country, unequivocally teaches that G-D commanded Jews to settle everywhere in the holy land whch He deeded to the Jewish people as an eternal inheritance.
We are admonished to “drive out the enemy before he becomes pricks in your eyes and thorns in your sides and will vex you in the land in which you live”.
This deep seated problem which has never been resolved since the establishment of the State of Yisrael, namely whether Israel should be governed according to secular law or Torah Law, now threatens to pit Jew against Jew and brings us closer to a dangerous civil war.
In rendering their contemporary decisions, the Government of Israel should remember the long and painful history of the Jewish people!
It is not the secular laws such as those espoused by Israel’s Supreme Court, but rather obedience to the time honored and wise Torah Laws of the Supreme Being which ultimately insure Jewish survival.
Lets at least try to call this court by a more accurate and meaningful name, The Supreme Anti-Torah Court, or perhaps as The Court Of The Few Dominating The Many. In any event, well past the time to clip its wings and make them only a court of adjudication, not of dictatorship.
the LON mandate recognizes the same… the only people who made laws which obstruct the settlement of Jews in Judea Samaria are Israeli Jews…. no foreigner made those laws.. their laws mandated settlement…. no non jews made those laws
Israeli Jews must look and see that the only laws made to stop jews settling and living in any part of Judea Samaria were made by Israeli Jews and ratified by an illegitimate self appointed usurper of government calling themselves the High Court.
ONLY ISRAELI JEWS HAVE MADE THE SETTLEMENT OF JEWS IN JUDEA SAMARIA ILLEGAL
I cannot find such laws anywhere else, those laws only exist made by the Jewish state… they did not exist in the british rule west of the Jordan river…. repeal those anti semitic laws made by jews and return to the laws of the goyim whose law states that jewish immigration and settlement in Judea Samaria must be facilitated and encouraged. The plague on the Jews are the Jews themselves… pretending that others made those laws.
Sebastien Zorn Said:
this is the most absurd notion I have ever heard… why would Israel recognize any aspect of Jordanian law as having any weight under any circumstances. Something is seriously wrong with that High Court… either they are incompetent poseurs or………
My understanding of most venues in western law unregistered land or land whose title cannot be ascertained reverts to the state… which can only be Israel.
Israel needs to be rid of this politicized self electing group of leftist lawyers acting as a shadow gov who overides the basic international law which gives legal existence to the state of Israel in which is stated that “the immigration and close settlement of Jews in the historical homeland shall be facilitated and encouraged” but this self appointed high court gov has NEVER complied with that law and mandate.
Wow. There’s a lawyer who agrees with what I said. Maybe there is a god.
“Search
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Friday, December 2, 2016
The Erroneous Judicial Ruling of Madam Justice Naor and the Supreme Court
The Erroneous Judicial Ruling of Madam Justice Naor and the Supreme Court
Attorney Irving Gendelman 2 December 2016
1. This relates to the contentious issue of Amona and the erroneous
judicial ruling of Madam Justice Naor and the Supreme Court.
2. The touchstone of this issue relates to the question of the
ownership of the land on which the Jewish community of Amona resides. Based
upon the erroneous ruling of Madam Justice Naor and the Supreme Court, this
community is to be destroyed without any consideration of the adverse impact
on these Jewish residents. The specter of Judenrein is apparent. Madam
Justice Naor and the Court are indifferent to the human suffering which will
thus engulf these Jewish residents.
3. Among the various legal issues reported on the question of ownership
of this area, it is important to note the comments of Professor Moshe Dann
in this regard. He notes the following:
“Chief Justice Beinish declared that land which was not designated as State
Land was automatically ‘private Palestinian land,’ regardless of whether it
was claimed and used by Arabs and properly evaluated or not.”
This follows Jordanian law but unilaterally the former Chief Justice made it
Israeli law.….Therefore, simply recognizing that land grants had been
registered are ‘privately owned ‘ is sufficient to prevent Jews from using
and claiming it. Jews were and could be expelled from their homes, their
property destroyed-even when there was no legitimate Arab claimant or no
claimant at all…”
Justice Edna Arbel and Miriam Naor were participants in this decision.
Basically, Justices Beinish, Arbel and Naor unilaterally and gratuitously
conveyed ownership of this land to Jordan as against the interests of
Israel. One wonders from legal considerations how the Court empowered itself
to convey this land to Jordan. Was it a lack of judicial acumen or
essentially a derogation of Israeli interests?
4. But there is a more compelling legal consideration which discredits
the Court’s opinion whereby the Court unilaterally acts a grantor of land.
In this context, the Court was not aware of the scholarly legal paper, “ The
Missing Reversioner:
Reflections on the Status of Judea and Samaria,” Israel Law Review, Vol. 3,
No. 2, April 1968 by Professor Yehuda Blum of International Law, Hebrew
University and former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations.
In part, Professor Blum writes:
“…the areas of Judea and Samaria prior to 1948 were under the British
Mandate. As such, it has been held that the doctrine of sovereignty has no
application to the mandate system or such sovereignty is held in abeyance if
and when such inhabitants obtain recognition as an independent State. Thus,
upon the abrogation of mandate responsibility by Great Britain, sovereignty
was not created nor gained by the inhabitants of that territory…
“ It is submitted that the external military intervention that took place on
the termination of the British mandate…across the frontiers of the former
Mandatory Palestine-including the armed intervention of the Kingdom of
Transjordan constituted a use of force in violation of the rule embodied
in Article 2 (4) of the Charter….It must be concluded that the armed
intervention of the various Arab States…was a violation of international
law…the illegality of the presence of the invading force…was not removed by
the Armistice Agreements.
“Article 2(2) of the Israel-Jordan General Armistice Agreement stipulates…’no
provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims
and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of
the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement dictated
exclusively by military considerations…
“The purported annexation of the ‘West Bank’ in April 1950, was therefore
from the point of international law, devoid of any legal effect… Thus the
Kingdom of Jordan never acquired the status of a legitimate sovereign over
Judea and Samaria and enjoyed at most the rights of a belligerent occupant
there (during the period under its military jurisdiction from 1948-1967…
“After Israel secured the territories after the Egyptian and Jordanian
aggression, ‘the legal standing of Israel in the territories in question is
that of a State which is lawfully in control of territory in respect of
which no other State can show better title. Or if it is preferred to state
the matter in terms of belligerent occupation, then the legal standing of
Israel in the territories in question is at the very least that of a
belligerent occupant in respect of which Jordan is not entitled to the
reversionary rights of a legitimate sovereign…
“The conclusion reached here, according to which Israel is more that a
belligerent occupant with regard to Judea and Samaria, while Jordan could be
regarded during the period of 1948-1967, has ,of course, far-reaching
implications. It must be remembered that title to territory is based not on
a claim of absolute validity…but rather on one of relative validity. Since
in the present view no State can make out a legal claim that is equal to
Israel, this relative superiority may be sufficient, under international
law, to make Israeli possession of Judea and Samaria virtually
indistinguishable from absolute title.”
5. Thus, it is abundantly clear , based on the foregoing, that Supreme
Court decisions awarding property to Jordan and subsequently to Arabs is
erroneous and is fraught with a lack of judicial knowledge and acumen. The
Court did not have the power nor the right to convey the land in question to
Jordan and to Arab ownership. The Court decision of Madam Justice Naor
derogates and adversely impacts on the sovereignty of the State of Israel
and her citizens and concomitantly causes undue suffering on the Jewish
residents of Amona to which the Madam Justice Naor and the Court are totally
indifferent!
This is a singular failure of Madam Justice Naor and the Court in not
applying the proper legal principles in its judicial-making process.
Regrettably, Madam Justice Naor and the Court did not apply the basic
democratic constitutional principle of “equal justice under the law.”
6. Et tu Madam Justice Naor and the Supreme Court!
=============
Irving Gendelman is a Jerusalem-based Human Rights Activist Attorney”
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=71816‘
Which, in turn, should activate this:
“Basic Law: Israel Lands
Passed on July 25, 1960, by the fourth Knesset.”
“The basis of the law is the special relationship between the People of Israel and the Land of Israel and its redemption. The law ensures that the state lands, which constitute about 90% of the lands in the state, should remain national property. The law prohibits the transfer of ownership over lands owned by the state, the Development Authority or the Jewish National Fund, either by sale or by any other means, with the exception of types of land or transactions, that have been specified in the law.
Full text of the Law”
http://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_yesod2.htm#2
I agree. They are pricks.