In the case of Jordanian Law #40, the racist law still in force that prevents individual Jews from buying land in Judea and Samaria, the High Court of Justice claimed that there is no justifiable reason to intervene. When Regavim petitioned against the law, the High Court judges sent us to the legislator.
However, in two other cases, the High Court deemed it right to intervene: when a Jewish community refused to allow an Arab to move in, the judges ruled that he can live there (the Kaadan case); and when a Jew requested to lease land in a Bedouin town, the Court rejected his petition (the Avitan case).
The High Court of Justice intervenes in government and Knesset decisions only if they seem unreasonable. But it’s clear that the question of what’s reasonable or not depends on your political outlook. If it is *reasonable* to cancel the law against infiltration in Israel and *unreasonable* to cancel a racist law which prohibits the sale of property to Jews, what does that say about “reasonableness” in the eyes of the justices?
Purim is over. It’s time to take the masks off, and restore the balance between the different branches of Israeli government.
Related Posts
Regavim Study: Jerusalem Has Lost Over 3,500 Dunams of Open Land to Illegal Construction — Enforcement Gaps Persist Despite Recent Improvements
A new Regavim study presented Wednesday at the Knesset Interior and Environment Committee reveals the extent of illegal construction in Jerusalem’s open areas, exposing a widening gap between the city’s eastern and western sides.
A New Dawn in the Battle for Judea and Samaria
Meir Deutsch, Director General for The Regavim Movement Published in Israel Hayom, December 18th, 2024 For the first time in a decade, there’s been an unprecedented decline in illegal Palestinian construction in Area C, coupled with a significant increase in enforcement actions by the Civil Administration. This isn’t just a statistic; it’s a beacon of […]
