Supreme Court Decides, 4-3: Synagogues to be Destroyed

rest of article..

Corinaldi had some harsh words for other sectors: "Not only the Supreme Court is to blame. The religious and hareidi publics, and the rabbis, must make a genuine self-accounting as to why such a clear and unanimous Halakhic ruling was sounded so late in the game."

Gush Katif spokesman Eran Sternberg said, "Together with the synagogues in Gush Katif, also being destroyed are our last vestiges of trust in the Supreme Court - trust which was already wobbly as a result of the entire expulsion process. This decision would not have shamed any anti-Semitic court in the world..."

The Supreme Court had been asked to decide between official government policy and the rulings of the Chief Rabbis. The government decided several weeks ago that following the expulsion of Jews from Gaza, all houses and synagogues would be razed, while 154 public structures would be spared. The latter includes community centers, schools, the regional council building, and even at least one swimming pool. However, for fear that the synagogues would be desecrated by the Arabs, it was decided that they must be destroyed beforehand.

Government spokesmen have also explained that they do not want Jews attempting to return to the buildings in the future.

The Chief Rabbinate, on the other hand, ruled unanimously that desecration at the hands of non-Jews is better than destruction at the hands of Jews. The rabbis stated that a Jewish body - whether the State or individuals - must have no hand in the destruction of a synagogue. The rabbis also added that Jewish communities around the world had warned that their own synagogues would be endangered if Israel razes its own.

Atty. Corinaldi summed up this point in his brief by writing, "The terrible precedent of destroying synagogues in an official manner by the Israeli government representing the Jewish and democratic state, and via the Israeli defensive army - would undoubtedly have grave ramifications for many synagogues around the world. On the other hand, even if they are destroyed by Arab vandals, let it be their sin - while the negative precedent of Jews carrying out the destruction will be avoided."

The Court recommended on Tuesday that the government ask the Palestinian Authority, the U.S. and other international elements to help secure the safety and sanctity of the structures.

Among those involved in contacts of this nature were Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar, Shas Party Chairman MK Eli Yishai, and Natan Sharansky. Rabbi Amar was reportedly in touch with the King of Morocco, and Yishai with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's administration. Sharansky and Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, asked Bush Administration officials to make their aid to the PA contingent upon a PA commitment to preserve the synagogues.

Atty. Corinaldi called upon Prime Minister Sharon and President Katzav to act to change the decision, even though it is scheduled to be implemented as early as tomorrow. "Even if only a few of the synagogues remain, such as the large ones in N'vei Dekalim, that will be better than nothing," he said.

He also noted that destroying the synagogues at this hour, with Arab snipers waiting to attack, might endanger the forces.

"Contacts are still ongoing with the Palestinian Authority," Corinaldi noted, "and the last word has not yet been said. But even if this fails, future generations should know that this decision was not made without a strong fight on our part."

Before the ruling was released, Corinaldi told Arutz-7, "As I wrote to the judges themselves, the eyes of the Jewish world are raised to the gates of the Supreme Court at this difficult and fateful hour. This is a weighty decision that requires strong shoulders, and will leave the Supreme Court's imprint on Jewish life in Israel, as well as in Jewish history throughout all coming generations."

The majority opinion explained the ruling as having been made "despite the great importance and sensitivity of the matter," because the question involved only whether the government decision was legal according to accepted legal standards.

The minority opinion, on the other hand, was that another hearing should be held, because of the issue's great importance and sensitivity, as well as its broad Halakhic, national, international and Jewish ramifications. The three judges wrote that the issue should therefore not be judged only according to the narrow criteria of routine decisions. "It is such a weighty decision that it justifies a reconsideration of the legality of the government decision."

I thought that was our Supreme Court for a sec!

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/622813.html

Last update - 23:18 08/09/2005

Sharon delays razing of Gaza Strip synagogues

By Yuval Yoaz and Nadav Shragai, Haaretz Correspondents

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided Thursday night to postpone the demolition of synagogues in the Gaza Strip, despite a Supreme Court decision earlier in the day allowing the razing of the buildings.

Sharon complied with a request by Defense Ministry Shaul Mofaz, who suggested trying to find avert the demolitions, and to transfer responsibility for the houses of worship to other sources.

A final decision on the matter will be made at a cabinet meeting on Sunday.

In light of the decision, the IDF has put off the start of an operation to raze the synagogues, which was scheduled to begin late Thursday night.

Earlier Thursday, an expanded panel of Supreme Court justices gave a go-ahead to the demolition of the Gaza synagogues when it decided by a 4-3 majority not to hold further debates on the issue.

The Yesha Council of settlements expressed its shock at the Court's decision. The council said the High Court displays sensitivity only when it comes to non-Jewish issues, sometimes even those related to Israel's enemies, but turns a blind eye to the innermost feelings of every Jew."

The Court's decision will cancel a temporary injunction barring the demolition of the synagogues, and allows the demolition of all synagogues in the Strip that have not yet been moved into Israel, in accordance with an earlier agreement reached by the state and Gush Katif rabbis.

Following the original Supreme Court ruling, two synagogues, in transportable structures, have been transferred from the settlements of Slav and Tel Katifa to Israel proper. Parts of three additional synagogues, and the contents of all synagogues in the Strip have also been transferred to Israel.

According to the law, a repeat hearing can only be held if the original verdict outlines a new ruling that contradicts previous legal rulings. The judges had to decide whether allowing the demolition of synagogues constitutes this kind of ruling.

The four judges who voted against additional debates - Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, Dorit Beinish, Ayala Procaccia and Asher Grunis determined that, "Despite the great importance and sensitivity of the matter, there are no conditions that would allow holding further debates."

Judges Edmund Levy, Edna Arbel and Elyakim Rubinstein voted in favor of additional debates on the matter.

In their decision, the judges noted that they are not overlooking the difficulty bound in implementing the government decision on dismantling the synagogues, but that, "There exist various political considerations that influence the decision. The fate of the synagogues in the evacuated areas is a complex and multi-faceted matter under the direct responsibility of the government."

The Supreme Court urged the government earlier this week to ask the Palestinian Authority to assume security responsibility for the houses of worship.

Even though the Israelis should never have been forced out of Gaza, unfortunately, it's better to raze them than let the islamic pali terrorists desecrate them. And these pali terrorists will pollute the synagogues by placing a mosque on top of the land.

Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Jews destroying a Shul, several! I don't know what to say.

I'm not seeing any legal objections from those who oppose the Court's decision.

The Court ruled on the legality of the government's policy, and the rabbis are arguing that the policy is bad. Whether the policy is bad or not is not the responsibility of the court - it rightly confined itself with the law.

In short, the opponents of the policy want an activist court.

While I'm not disagreeing with that, why haven't any of the opponents of this decision been able to come up with a legal justification for their positions?

All they're doing is talking about the wisdom of the policy, which is not the domain of the court. The court was asked to decide on its legality, which it did.

The opponents wanted the court to veto the policy not on its legal merits but because they don't like it. That's the very definition of an advocate court.

I don't like the policy either, but it isn't the court's place to overrule the government's policy, here or in Israel.

You continue to ignore my question - what is the *legal* objection to this ruling?

And if there is none, what difference is there between what the opponents are asking the court to do and activist courts overturning decisions because they don't like them?

What is the "legal" basis of Communism? Do we respect the "courts" of Saddam? How about Al Queda?

The problem for you seems to be that there does not seem to be any branch of the Israeli government that agrees with your position.

Could it be possible to not-quite-destroy the buildings, leave them teetering so that the Arabs will not want to try to turn them directly into mosques?

Thank you.

Emotion overcomes logic. Too many "conservatives" are perfectly willing to have advocate courts, so long as they're *our* advocate courts.

Of course, this shouldn't surprise me. Too many "conservatives" like big government porkbarrel spending so long as it's *Republicans* throwing our money away.