Court issues temporary injunction on Homesh in first test for new government

Palestinians claim ownership of land, appeal to court to remove Yeshiva in settlement evacuated under 2005 law which Netanyahu commits to change; settler leader says government must not fail in first test against court
Gilad Morag, Elisha Ben Kimon|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
The Supreme Court, on Monday issued a temporary injunction compelling the government to explain within 90 days why it would not remove a settler Yeshiva from the former settlement of Homesh.
  • Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and Twitter

  • The injunction also demands the government explain why it neglects to take necessary steps for those claiming ownership of the land, to exercise their rights to it.
    2 View gallery
    חברי הכנסת מהליכוד בסיור בצפון השומרון
    חברי הכנסת מהליכוד בסיור בצפון השומרון
    Members of the Likud Party at the evacuated settlement of Homesh
    (Photo: Roy Hedi)
    The appeal to the court was made by Palestinian residents of the West Bank who claim ownership of the land and a left-wing advocacy group.
    This was being seen as a test case in the expected collision between the newly seated far-right government and the judicial institutions.
    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his Likud ministers and coalition partners have vowed to revamp the courts, so that politicians will have greater control over its make-up and its rulings, could be overturned by a simple majority in the Knesset.
    Homesh was one of four settlements in the northern West Bank, that were evacuated under the 2005 disengagement law that also included the Gaza Strip.
    It has become a symbol of the settlement movement after a terror attack against some of the students there, that resulted in the death of one and injuries to two others.
    2 View gallery
    האנדרטה שהוקמה בחומש לזכרו של יהודה דימנטמן ז"ל
    האנדרטה שהוקמה בחומש לזכרו של יהודה דימנטמן ז"ל
    Students at the illegal West Bank Yeshiva of Homesh
    (Photo: Homesh Yeshiva)
    The Yeshiva operating on site, did not have legal authority to do so and Palestinians had sought legal recourse to remove it.
    In his coalition agreement with the Religious Zionist Party, Netanyahu committed to changing the 2005 law and to legalize the settlers 'presence in Homesh.
    In the hearing, the state argued that since the government intends to change the law, the court should refrain from intervening but the justices said the government's position was irrelevant because the matter on hand is that the Yeshiva is on privately owned land.
    Yossi Dagan, head of the Samaria regional council said this case presents the first test for the new government. "It must not fail," he said.
    2Comments
    add comment
    The commenter agrees to the privacy policy of Ynet News and agrees not to submit comments that violate the terms of use, including incitement, libel and expressions that exceed the accepted norms of freedom of speech.
    2.
    What is the worth of Israeli agreements???
    Apparently not much. Israel signed the Oslo accords. Area A, Area B and Area C. None of these areas are Israeli. Actually Israel acknowledged, by signing Oslo, that these were occupied territories not under Israeli sovereignty. Homesh, on Palestinian privately owned land, was supposed to be evicted per Israeli court order which the Israelis never followed. And you wonder why the rest of the world kooks at the Israeli legal system as comprised of kangaroo courts if not nonexistent altogether. Why has it taken over 15 years for an Israeli court order to be enforced? Ignoring Israeli courts seems to be standard procedure for Israel's government.
    Mikesailor| 01.02.23
    00
    add comment
    The commenter agrees to the privacy policy of Ynet News and agrees not to submit comments that violate the terms of use, including incitement, libel and expressions that exceed the accepted norms of freedom of speech.
    1.
    Does private property matter or not?
    If the state believes in private property, it can't allow Homesh to build on land that other people own.
    asking| 01.02.23
    00
    add comment
    The commenter agrees to the privacy policy of Ynet News and agrees not to submit comments that violate the terms of use, including incitement, libel and expressions that exceed the accepted norms of freedom of speech.
    ""