This ruling should send shivers down the spine of everyone who respects the rule of law. It means that Israel's Supreme Court has been compromised by a political agenda that discriminates against Jews. By abandoning the Ottoman rules, the High Court may well have undermined the rule of law, by changing the age-old principles of land occupancy in Judea and Samaria by sudden judicial fiat.
Once again former chief justice Dorit Beinisch and a few of her colleagues have usurped the role and powers of the legislature and sought to create new law.
In a ruling last week, Beinisch and a panel that included Justices Edna Arbel and Miriam Naor, vehement opponents of settlements, held that Michael Lessans, a Jewish plumber who lives in Kedumim, in the Shomron, must evacuate 45 dunams (approx. 11 acres) of land on which he had planted 1,300 trees because Arabs claimed this area belonged to them.
The court ordered Lessans to remove the trees immediately and compensate the Arab claimants and the Civil Administration. The court ruled that Jews, unlike Arabs, could not claim land by chazaka (acquired right of possession) an Ottoman statute under which working the land for three to 10 years could be a basis for claiming ownership.
Lessans, who immigrated from Baltimore 40 years ago, planted the area with wheat, corn and barley in 1996, and in 2006 planted olive trees.A year later Arabs objected and in 2009 assisted and represented by Peace Now and Yesh Din filed a petition against Lessans. The land was never registered in tabu and the Arab claimants offered no proof of ownership.
According to Lessans, a document from the Ottoman period presented bythe Arab claimants refers to the right to rent "a place" in the area but no precise location is specified and the alleged owner is not listed. Therefore, it is impossible to know if Lessans' orchard is"the place," or not. Although the lower court rejected Arab claims of ownership, Peace Now and Yesh Din went directly to the Supreme Court,where they knew they could win on politics, rather than law.
In his appearance before the Supreme Court, Lessans offered to give the entire orchard to the Arabs if they could prove ownership. The court refused the deal. If the Arabs can't prove they own the land,however, why did the court order the trees removed and likely destroyed? These crucial facts were not reported in the media, which accepted the court's decision without question.
The same tactic of appealing directly to the Supreme Court which does not examine evidence was used in legal disputes over contested areas such as Migron. But in Lessans' case the court went beyond deciding on a specific place and issued a discriminatory edict. The justices did not rule on who owns the land since the Arab claimants clearly do not. They ruled on who did not own the land namely Michael Lessans, because, according to the court, the right to acquire land by chazaka does not apply to Jews.
If neither Lessans nor Arab claimants own the land, however, who does? The court was silent.
This ruling should send shivers down the spine of everyone who respects the rule of law. It means that Israel's Supreme Court has been compromised by a political agenda that discriminates against Jews.
Beinisch's ruling must also be considered along with her decision a few months ago regarding Migron that all land not certified as belonging to the State should be considered private Palestinian land,regardless of whether currently or in the future claimed or used by non- Arabs (i.e. Jews). Her earlier ruling also erased various categories of public land established under Ottoman rule, much of which is unsurveyed and disputed.
Beinisch's intent may have been to provide a more orderly system of land ownership than existed previously. But ruling that a law allowing someone to acquire unused and unclaimed land applies to Arabs but not Jews entrenches a system of inequality that legitimizes Arab encroachment and claims, and prevents any meaningful reforms.
Her ruling restricts Jews and encourages Arabs to take over land not claimed by the State of Israel, or by Jews. One would assume,moreover, that her ruling would legitimize Arab-Israeli citizens, or Arab citizens of the PA or Jordan who use the Ottoman law to seize land in Judea and Samaria.
Ever since 1967, the Israeli Civil Administration has consistently applied Jordanian law (i.e. Ottoman land law) on land issues in Judea and Samaria. This practice was what lead the late Plia Albeck to count goat droppings on land designated for possible Jewish civilian use, lest the areas in question infringe Arab possession rights which were recognized under Ottoman law. The late prime minister Menachem Begin was also scrupulous about observing these legal formalities.
By abandoning the Ottoman rules, the High Court may well have undermined the rule of law, by changing the age-old principles of land occupancy in Judea and Samaria by sudden judicial fiat.
Courts are empowered to interpret laws, not to make them. In democratic societies that's what legislatures are for. Whether judges support or oppose settlements, their opinions should reflect impartial deliberations. Anything less renders the judicial system a farce in black robes.
Manipulating Israel's judicial system using the Supreme Court, the State Prosecutor and Civil Administration against the rights of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria undermines democracy, Zionism and the rule of law. Allowing this pseudo-judicial travesty to continue pollutes our entire system of government.
For over four centuries after the Caliph Omar conquered the land of Israel in 633-4 CE, a synagogue and Jewish house of study operated on the Temple Mount and Jews were able to pray there freely. Among others, this is attested to by Rabbi Abraham bar Chiya HaNassi, a leading Spanish rabbinical authority of the 12th century, who wrote in his book Megilat Megaleh that, "at the beginning, after the Romans destroyed the Temple, Israel was not prevented from coming and praying there, and similarly the kings of Ishmael enacted a beneficent custom and allowed Israel to come to the Temple Mount and build a house of prayer and study." Furthermore, he notes, "all the exiles of Israel who lived near the Temple Mount would ascend on festivals and holidays and pray there."
Indeed some outrages against plain level-headedness can beggar even the most prolific of imaginations. For instance, presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's reference to Jerusalem as Israel's capital sent shockwaves of horror reverberating around the world. Obama's calculated agenda culminated in two farcical incidents this year. In March, his secretary of state's spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, was adamant that no Israeli capital exists, leastways not one she could name. More recently, White House spokesman Jay Carney stood discomfited on his podium, unable to identify Israel's capital. The best he could muster were stock inanities like: "You know our policy," and, "Our policy hasn't changed." In comparison, Romney comes up trumps. No contest. But that's only for folks whose common sense cannot be twisted with a few syrupy sentences, folks who still know that remembering isn't divisive and racist, that murder isn't loving and unifying. Such an unyielding mind-set is judged untrendy and uncool, much as is Romney's acknowledgment of the ancient ties of the Jewish people to the cradle of their nationhood. In our topsy-turvy existence, he dared to brazenly overstep the enlightened ones' mark.
A few months before the event, the police announced that they forbid the Walk out of fear from confrontation and conflict with the Muslims coming down from the Temple Mount after another day of the Ramadan fast. This decision was canceled two days after the Women in Green organization appealed to the Supreme Court, demanding that the police allow the Walk to be held as usual. Later in his speech he referred to the future of the El Aqsa mosque, located on the Temple Mount, as he sees it, and said that we can learn one thing from Beit El's Ulpana Hill deal, and that is the idea of sawing. "There is one thing we can all learn from one of the most questionable deals we have made lately, and that is what happened at the Ulpana Hill, where they decided to dismantle and relocate the houses, rather than destroy them. At least, when the time comes to reconstruct the Temple, and that time is coming, we will dismantle and relocate the "house" that is currently there. We will cut it up and they can relocate it wherever they want, because that's where the Third Temple belongs", called out Eldad over the applause of the crowd.
This article page provides Links to Youtube videos with English translations of the recent sovereignty conference speakers. If you don't know what this Sovereignty Conference you can read the following links to familiarise yourself. In short, it is the concept that instead of a two state solution, Israel takes control over the Palestinian West Bank
Definition: King's Calendar Chronological Research
The Premise: Between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE (but continuing down to at least 104 BCE), Sectarian redactors transcribed the legitimate 'solar year' chronological records of Israel and Judah, into an artificial form, with listed years as each comprised of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days, or 336 days per year, thus creating a 13th artificial year where 12 solar years existed.
When the Synchronous Chronological Data provided in the Books of Kings and Chronicles for the Divided Kingdom Period are measured in years of 336 days, the synchronisms actually align. [Refer to Appendix 5. to see how it synchronises the Divided Kingdom Period]
About the KingsCalendar Publisher
R.P.BenDedek is the owner and Editor of KingsCalendar.com which was originally set up to publicize his research results into the Chronology of Ancient Israel. Those results were published under the title: 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran'.
Whilst there have been many attempts to solve the chronological riddle of the Bible's synchronisms of reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah and their synchronism with other Ancient Near Eastern Nations, no other research is based on a simple mathematical formula which could, if it is incorrect, be disproved easily. To date, no one has been able to dismiss the mathematical results of this research.
Free to air Academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.