Monday, June 4, 2018

'Cancelling Regulation Law will lead to a crisis' - Arutz Sheva Staff

by Arutz Sheva Staff

Government rep. defends Regulation Law in Supreme Court. 'Cancellation based on international law amounts to a judicial coup.'

Attorney Harel Arnon
Attorney Harel Arnon
Miriam Alster/FLASH90
An expanded panel of nine Supreme Court justices is meeting today, Sunday, over two petitions filed last year against the Regulation Law.

The judges are Chief Justice Esther Hayut, Deputy Chief Justice Hanan Meltzer and Judges Neil Hendel, Uzi Fogelman, Yitzhak Amit, Noam Solberg, Dafna Barak-Erez, Meni Mazuz and Anat Baron.

The Regulation Law legalizes and protects thousands of Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria which were built with government backing and lacked absentee land claims, but against which there are now property claims.

Attorney Harel Arnon, who represents the government's position on the petitions against the Regulation Law, argued in the hearing that the issue of the position of international law on the matter is irrelevant to rulings on the petitions.

"I want to remove all the discussions on international law from the table," Arnon told the judges, adding that "this constitutes cancelling a law of the State of Israel. If the assertion that [the Regulation Law] is contrary to international law is accepted, this would be a judicial coup."

"If the court produces judicial review based on international law, it exceeds its authority. This would be a judicial coup and the judges would be misusing their role according to the Basic Law of Judiciary," Arnon added.

Arnon further argued that the law would prevent a major humanitarian crisis, and on the other hand would improve the situation of the Palestinian Arab landowners who are allegedly harmed.

"This is not a problem of 4,000 families, and the state understands that without authorization, there will be mass eviction of hundreds and thousands of families leading to a diplomatic, political and social crisis of the first order," said Arnon.

Attorney Arnon added, "The places that the Supreme Court ordered to evict, like Givat Assaf and Givat Ha’ulpana - the places have remained desolate. The least bad alternative should be chosen, the landowners will benefit, and the residents will benefit as well. Landowners didn’t benefit at all from the evictions. Here, they receive generous compensation or alternative land. "

Attorney Arnon criticized the Attorney General's position on the matter. "The argument that the Regulation Law is unnecessary and that there are other tools to authorize settlement does not make the law unconstitutional."

According to him, "The measures proposed by the Attorney General are not less harmful. He can’t make a square out of a circle. There may be other tools, but they are not more proportionate. There is no other way that does not include the expropriation of land. The Attorney General's proposal to use ‘Section 5’ does not provide a solution for many places in which land allocation has not been made. "

In February 2017, the Regulation Law passed second and third readings in the Knesset by a majority of 60 to 52.

In August of that year, Supreme Court Justice Neal Hendel issued a temporary interim injunction against the Regulation Law until rulings on a series of petitions filed against the law by left-wing organizations and Palestinian Arab organizations were given.

Attorney General Dr. Avichai Mandelblit announced that he would not defend the law in the Supreme Court, asserting that it violates Basic Laws.

Arutz Sheva Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

No comments:

Post a Comment