​In an Orwellian attempt to deny that HaShem gave Eretz Yisra’el, including Har HaBayit (the Temple Mount), to the Jewish people and the Jewish nation, the State of Israel, a self-proclaimed democracy, has long enforced a law which makes it illegal for a Jew to pray on Har HaBayit, while at the same time, encouraging Muslim prayer at that location.
 
During the week of 15 Iyyar 5782 (May 22, 2022), three Jewish teenage boys were arrested by Israeli police for saying the “Shema” prayer and “bowing” while on Har  HaBayit.  Notwithstanding a 5777 (2016) Israeli Supreme Court ruling which held that police lack the authority to unilaterally issue restraining orders, the police in this case issued and served the teens with a restraining order which purported to bar them from the Old City, and by implication, from Har HaBayit, for a period of 15-days.
 
The Israeli police attempted to justify issuance of the restraining order by claiming that the conduct of the boys – reciting the Shema prayer and bowing – may lead to a violation of public order.  In other words, Israeli police claimed that Jewish prayer combined with “bowing” may provoke local Muslims to commit illegal acts of violence.
 
The statement by a police commissioner that engaging in public prayer constitutes a criminal act because such prayer may incite others to commit illegal acts of violence is, in a word, outrageous.  Any police commissioner who would make such a claim, rather than order his subordinate officers to protect worshipers from the threat of illegal and violent acts by others, has irreparably violated the public trust and should immediately be dismissed from the police force.  Furthermore, it should be no defense that the police commissioner was only acting in accordance with instructions from his superiors, regardless of whether those superiors are politicians or higher-ranking civil servants.
 
On 22 Iyyar 5782 (Sunday, May 22, 2022), a Jerusalem appellate court, in ruling that police exceeded their authority when they issued a restraining order against the teenage boys, stated “[i]t is difficult to imagine a situation in which shouting ‘Shema Yisrael’ on the Temple Mount would [unlawfully] lead to a breach of the peace.”  The court went on to quote Israeli Police Commissioner Kobi Shabtai, who said during the recent, month-long, Muslim holiday of Ramadan that “[t]he Temple Mount is open. The Israel Police allows [sic] all residents of the country and the territories who come to pray on the Temple Mount to ascend and observe the worship of religion [sic].”  The police commissioner, however, apparently did not intend for his invitation to pray on Har HaBayit to include Jews.
 
To state what should be obvious, there is something fundamentally wrong when a Jewish state enacts or enforces a law which makes it illegal for a Jew to pray.
 
Further compounding this injustice is the apparent disregard by police of a prior Israeli Supreme Court ruling which held that it is unlawful for police to unilaterally issue restraining orders.
 
In a democratic society, which the State of Israel claims to be, a fundamental principle of law is that the proper role of the police is to enforce the law, not make it.  When police claim the power to unilaterally issue restraining orders, they deprive the person(s) against whom such orders issue of due process of law, which in this context means the right to a fair hearing before an impartial judge, prior to the imposition of a restraint on their freedom of movement.
 
Police officers have an implicit obligation to be aware, and know the substance, of court rulings that delineate the boundaries of their authority.  When they exceed their authority, they should be held accountable, both through administrative disciplinary procedures within the police department, as well as through criminal prosecution and/or private civil damage awards against the government and/or against individual police officers.

​Israeli media reported that on 14 Adar II 5782 (Thursday, March 17, 2022), two dolls portraying Israeli police officers were hanged in effigy in the Beit Shemesh neighborhood of Jerusalem and that in a separate protest, a picture of the mayor of Jerusalem was “hanged” in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Mea Shearim.
 
Israeli police disbursed the protesters and made several arrests.
 
Although it was reported that the Mea Shearim protest was in opposition to the proposed installation of a new light rail train line through that neighborhood, the Israeli media, as is typical in more controversial matters, was diligent in failing to report the motivation for, or purpose of, the Beit Shemesh protest.
 
Politically-motivated protests are, of course, common, not only in Israel, but in other countries as well.
 
The State of Israel, however, unlike countries that recognize and accept that free speech is not a right which is granted by government but, rather, is a fundamental human right which exists notwithstanding government, has a long and sordid history of infringing that right.
 
For example, the State of Israel has banned certain candidates/parties from seeking election to the Knesset (Parliament), on the ground that their political platform is such that it constitutes an “incitement to racism.”  Although most would agree that “racism” is unacceptable, the fact remains that, as the saying goes, “the devil is in the details.”  In other words, the definition of “racism” is often fluid, and is defined only as being that position which is held by one’s political opponents.
 
Indeed, many who oppose the Torah do so, at least in part, by claiming – falsely – that many provisions of the Torah are “racist.”
 
Compounding the nefarious nature of a law which makes “incitement to racism” a ground for disqualifying one’s political opponents from running for office is that the law is comingled with other provisions of law which – legitimately – prohibit those who seek the overthrow of the government from running for political office.

Section 7A of Basic Law: The Knesset
 
In the aftermath of another protest, this one having occurred in Beit Shemesh on 30 Kislev 5772 (December 26, 2011), Member of the Knesset (MK) Nachman Shai reportedly submitted to the Knesset a bill that would make “publicizing, inciting, preaching or encouraging gender segregation in the public sphere” a criminal act punishable by three years in prison.”  In other words, MK Shai did not seek to criminalize harmful conduct; he sought to criminalize speech.
 
The Talmud famously records an incident regarding Rabbi Eliezer and a debate about whether a vessel called the “Oven of Aknai” could become ritually unclean:

​T.B., Masekhet Bava Metzia 59b.
 
Thus, as we see, Jewish Law (Halakha), as should the State of Israel, protects the right of free speech and dissent.  Not only was it permissible for Rabbi Eliezer to take a position which was counter to that of the Rabbis; it was also permissible for the Rabbis, in turn, to take a position which challenged The Holy One, Blessed be He.
 
Thus, if it is permissible for Rabbi Eliezar to challenge the Rabbis, and for the Rabbis, in turn, to challenge the Almighty, surely it is appropriate for the Jewish people to challenge the workings of its secular government in the State of Israel.
 
In its Declaration of Independence, signed on 6th Iyar 5708 (May 15, 1948), the State of Israel declared that it would adopt a constitution no later than October 1, 1948.  However, as often happens, reality got in the way of good intentions and, due in part to having to fight a war of independence, no constitution was adopted, either by May 15, 1948, or at anytime thereafter.  Instead, a document known as the Harari Proposal, was adopted by the Knesset.  The Harari Proposal provides for the adoption of so-called “Basic Laws” which, although not a constitution in any real sense, are nevertheless labeled as such under Israeli law.
 
Israel’s Basic Laws, although having created a façade of democracy and respect for civil rights (including free speech), have failed to secure for the Jewish people a true system of democracy and freedom.  As the distinguished and highly-respected Richard Posner, an American-born Jew whose parents immigrated to the United State from Eastern Europe, and who is also a U.S. appellate judge, once wrote, “Israel is an immature democracy, poorly governed; its political class is mediocre and corrupt; it floats precariously in a lethally hostile Muslim sea; and it really could use a constitution.”  Richard Posner, Enlightened Despot (April 22, 2007).
 
Judge Posner is, of course, correct.  The State of Israel “could use a constitution.”  And as the saying goes, “there is no time like the present” for Israel to convene a constitutional convention – which should be wholly independent from the current system of government – for that purpose.
 
As a 20th century Jewish economist once said, “Liberty is meaningless if it is only the liberty to agree with those in power.”  Ludwig von Mises.

​Michael B. Oren, author, former Israeli ambassador to the United States, and former member of the Knesset, recently wrote an article titled “Israel needs Olim.”  In his article, Dr. Oren reveals that, on the heels of a 31% increase in Aliyah from North America during 2021, some members of the Israeli government want to discourage, or at a minimum, not promote, Aliyah (Jewish immigration to Eretz Yisra’el).  Dr. Oren, who supports Jews making Aliyah, relates these objections as including:

1. “Why should we subsidize people who are better off than we are?”

2. “Why should we welcome people who going to take our jobs and increase the already sky-high price of housing?”

3. Israel [is] already too crowded, they argue, with the highest natural growth rate in the industrialized world.  “The last thing we need is a larger population.”

Let us analyze each of these objections to Aliyah:

As Dr. Oren points out, a significant percentage of Jews who make Aliyah do so, at least in part, to flee anti-Semitism which exists in their country of birth or current residence.

Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel), the only Jewish state in the world, arose from the ashes of Auschwitz.  For a Jewish member of the Israeli government to ask, “Why should Israel subsidize Jewish immigrants who are “better off” than Israelis” begs the question: “How can a Jew who is coming home to the Land of his forefathers, Avraham, Yizhaq, and Ya’aqov, be “better off” before making Aliyah than are his Jewish-Israeli brethren who already reside in the Land, especially if the immigrating Jew is fleeing to Israel to escape anti-Semitism in his country of birth or current residence?

However, those who complain about “Israel subsidizing Jewish immigrants who are ‘better off’ than Israelis” are probably not referring to anti-Semitism, but rather to economic considerations.

If we understand the term “better off” to mean having a greater financial net worth, the allegation that Olim (Jewish immigrants to Israel) are financially “better off” than native-born Israelis may be true in some cases and may not be true in other cases.  That assessment, however, not only misses the real issue, it obfuscates it through what is little more than a Socialist class-warfare argument.

To say that a person should not be allowed to immigrate to a country because the immigrant is “better off” financially than a majority of the country’s current citizens is much more an indictment of the country’s economic policies than it is of the intended immigrant.  Assuming the truth of the allegation, the questions the country should be asking include: “Why are the citizens of our country financially poorer than people who want to immigrate to our country?” and “What economic policies can we change that would make it easier for our citizens to be more economically successful?”

Lastly, if a country is going to base its immigration policy on an intended immigrant’s net worth, it would make a lot more sense for the country to encourage immigration by wealth, rather than economically disadvantaged, individuals.  After all, wealthy immigrants are more likely than other immigrants to start businesses and spend money in their new country, and less likely than their less affluent fellow immigrants to need government financial assistance after immigrating.

As for providing direct subsidies to Olim, perhaps such subsidies would not be necessary, and perhaps the county’s current citizens would not be as economically disadvantaged as they are, if the State of Israel would lower its income tax rates (33% on the equivalent of about $68,500 of income; 45% on the equivalent of about $150,000 or more of income), lower its value-added tax (VAT) rate of 17%, and lower its real property tax rates.

Israel’s Basic Laws (quasi-constitutional provisions) proclaim that Medinat Yisra’el is a “Jewish state.”  When Medinat Yisra’el came into existence in 1948, shortly after the Shoah (Holocaust), one of the foundational ideas upon which the country was established was that any Jew, from anywhere in the world, was welcome — and indeed encouraged — to make Aliyah; that is, to immigrate to Israel.  This foundational idea was given concrete meaning through the enactment of Israel’s Law of Return, which remains the law of the Holy Land to this day.

To restrict, or discourage, Aliyah out of fear that Olim “will take Israeli jobs” would constitute a violation of both Israel’s Basic Law which, declares that Israel is a “Jewish State,” and Israel’s Law of Return.

Furthermore, to argue that Jewish immigration to Israel will result in a loss of Israeli jobs is really nothing more than a veiled argument which states that Israel is already at, or that it already exceeds, its optimum population point.  The fear is not so much a growth in population through immigration, but, rather, a fear of any population growth, as any growth in population has the potential to impact the Israeli labor market.  Thus, in order to be consistent, those who advocate against Jewish immigration to the Jewish homeland, would also have to advocate for population control devices such as compulsory birth control, as an increase in population through natural growth, all other things being equal, will also result in a loss of Israeli jobs, albeit over a longer period of time.

Extreme methods such as refusing to allow Jews to immigrate to Israel and other population control devices are not necessary to ensure that Medinat Yisra’el has a growing and vibrant economy and labor market.  Consider the following proposals:

1. Eliminate import taxes. 
The State of Israel imposes taxes on the import of most items, which, in turn cripples, or at least severely restricts the ability of businesses to import and sell both consumer goods and factors of production at affordable prices.  If import taxes were eliminated, more Olim, as well as foreign businesses and Israeli entrepreneurs, would be willing and able to start businesses in Israel.

2. Reform labor laws.
The State of Israel, having been founded by Socialists, continues to be plagued to this day by labor laws which restrict a free market in labor services.  A good start at labor law reform would be to:

a. Dissolve all labor unions;

b. Pass a law which states that unless an employer and employee voluntarily enter into a contract which states otherwise, all employment relationship are at “at-will,” meaning that either party can terminate the employment relationship at-will, without penalty; and

c. Repeal all laws which mandate the form or amount of compensation that an employer must pay and employee.

If implemented, these labor law reforms would, on an annual basis, create many more private-sector jobs than there are new Olim.

3. Reform government employment practices.
According to its Basic Law, the State of Israel is officially a “Jewish State.”  Thus, a law should be passed which states that one qualification for government employment is that an applicant/employee must be Jewish.  Such a law would apply to all government employees.  Such a law, if implemented, would not merely offset the effects of Jewish immigration, it would also bring the State of Israel into compliance with Jewish religious law (Halakha) on this issue.

It’s true that the larger cities in Medinat Yisra’el, like the larger cities in most other nations, have some degree of congestion.  However, even for a comparatively small country, there are vast amounts of undeveloped land in Israel.  The following are just a few laws which, if implemented, would result in more than ample land being available for Olim and other Jews:

1. Reform government land ownership law.
In keeping with its Socialist roots, an estimated 93% of the real property which constitutes the State of Israel, excluding Samaria, Judea, and Gaza, is owned by the Israeli government.  A reform of the Basic Law, which currently provides “The ownership of Israel lands, being the lands in Israel of the State, the Development Authority or the Keren Kayemet Le-Israel, shall not be transferred either by sale or in any other manner” should be repealed.  In its place, a new Basic Law should be enacted which states, in essence, that all Israeli lands are to be privately owned, except for those lands that the government purchases or acquires through a law of eminent domain for a legitimate government use.

2. Reform general land ownership law. 
Enact a Basic Law which states that only Jews shall have the legal right to purchase real property, and that no rental of real property to non-Jews shall exceed a term of 1 year in duration.

3. Sovereignty over Jewish lands. 
Bring all lands within the borders of the State of Israel under the control and sovereignty of the State, including the entirety of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

These proposed reforms to Israeli real property law, if enacted, would ensure that there would be no shortage of land for Olim and an increasing Jewish population, which, in turn, means that, all other things being equal, Jewish immigration to Israel would not negatively impact the cost of housing.  Additionally, implementing these proposed laws would have the benefit of bringing Israeli law more in line with Halakha.

​Not only would these proposed reforms, if implemented, more than offset any adverse impact on the Israeli economy that might be attributed to Jews who make Aliyah, these reforms would greatly benefit the Israeli economy by a factor which is beyond what many currently believe is even possible.  Furthermore, implementing these reforms would result in the State of Israel changing course, from one which is going away from Torah, to one which is directly aligned with Israel’s true constitution: The Torah.

During July 2021, the Israeli Religious Affairs Minister announced proposed reforms to the Israeli system of kashrut (kosher) certification, the stated purpose of which is to lower the costs of kashrut certification which, in turn, is intended to lower the cost to consumers of kosher food.  The proposed reforms are strenuously opposed by the Chief Rabbinate, which currently is the beneficiary of a monopoly — created by Israeli law — over such certifications.

The Chief Rabbinate is a government agency within the Ministry of Religious Services and, under current law, the Chief Rabbinate exercises certain legislative, executive, and judicial powers.

The Chief Rabbinate consists of two Chief Rabbis: an Ashkenazi rabbi, and a Sephardi rabbi (aka: Rishon leZion).  The Chief Rabbis serve for a term of 10 years.  Currently, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi is David Lau and the Sephardic Chief Rabbi is Yitzhak Yosef, both of whom began their terms in 2013.

In addition to the monopoly over kashrut certifications, the Chief Rabbinate also operates Israel’s religious courts, which exercise exclusive jurisdiction over Jewish marriages, Jewish divorces, conversions to Judaism, and Jewish burials.  Israel’s religious courts also share concurrent jurisdiction with secular Israeli courts over matters such as personal status, alimony, child support, child custody, and inheritance.  Court orders issued by Israel’s religious courts are enforced in the same manner as court orders issued by Israel’s secular courts.

Under the proposed reforms to the system of kashrut certification, the Chief Rabbinate, rather than directly providing kashrut certifications to businesses (manufacturers, restaurants, etc.), would set national standards and regulate private entities which, in turn, would provide kosher certifications.  Most importantly, the proposed reforms would allow private kashrut certification providers to certify the kashrut of an item even though the item does not comply with the Chief Rabbinate’s standards, provided that three municipal rabbis consent to the certification.

The response of the Chief Rabbinate was that:

​
Although the Chief Rabbinate opposes the proposed kashrut certification reform, it has been reported that David Lau, whose term as Chief Rabbi is scheduled to end in approximately 2 years, has agreed to not oppose kashrut certification reform in exchange for an appointment to the Supreme Rabbinical Court.  Perhaps this deal fell through, as it was reported about a month later that Chief Rabbis Lau and Yitzhak Yosef led a protest against the kashrut reforms.

During early December 2021, it was reported that, according to Israel’s state security agency, the life of Religious Affairs Minister had been threatened, in part because of the Minister’s legislative efforts to enact kashrut certification reforms.

At the core of this controversy is whether government should have a monopoly on kashrut certification.  The Chief Rabbinate and its supporters claim that kashrut certification reform — a partial divestment of the Rabbinate’s monopoly on kashrut certification — will result in “the end of proper Kashrut supervision.”

However, the Rabbinate also claims that if kashrut reforms are enacted, consumers will reject private kashrut certifications and “vote with their feet” to reject such certifications.  If so, the Rabbinate has nothing to fear, except perhaps for a loss of a significant amount of revenue from businesses who purchase the Rabbinate’s certifications.

The real question is not whether the Chief Rabbinate should be partially divested of its monopoly to issue kashrut certifications by limiting its role to setting national kashrut standards, but rather, whether there is any justification whatsoever for government involvement in setting or enforcing kashrut standards.

First, kashrut certification is an issue only for Jews who voluntarily choose to “keep kosher.”  If a Jew decides to not “keep kosher,” he simply buys and eats whatever pleases him.  For this Jew, kashrut certifications are meaningless.

Second, for the Jew who does “keep kosher,” there is no reason to believe that he cannot, or will not, take the time and trouble to learn about various private kashrut certifications and choose the certification(s) that best suits him.  For this Jew, his decision affect only him and no one else.

Third, the Rabbinate claims that, if kashrut reforms are enacted, Israeli Jews will “vote with their feet” to reject private kashrut certification.  However, it appears more likely that the Rabbinate is afraid that if allowed to do so, the masses will in fact “vote with their feet,” and reject the Rabbinate.

In the final analysis, the problem is not limited to Israeli kasrut standards, or even to the proper role of the Rabbinate.  The root of the problem, notwithstanding Israel’s Basic Laws, is an Israeli government that is neither Jewish nor democratic.

​Shortly after the beginning of every (Jewish) new year, the Torah portion Hayye Sara, which tells the story of the purchase by Abraham Abinu of the Cave of Makhpela, which is located in Hebron, Israel, is read on Shabbat in synagogues throughout the world.  Not surprisingly, many Jews who live in Israel, or who just happen to be in Israel, visit Hebron and the Cave of Makhpela during the week which immediately precedes the Shabbat on which Hayye Sara is read in synagogues.

This year, 5782 (2021), in order to gain access to the Cave of Makhpela, visitors are being required to disclose private medical information which either proves they have been fully “vaccinated” against the Coronavirus or that they have recovered from the virus.

Visitors to the Cave of Makhpela who do not possess the required proof of “vaccination” or who decline to disclose to government officials who control access to the Cave of Makhpela information contained in their private medical records, are denied access to the Cave of Makhpela.  Instead of being allowed to enter and pray inside of the Cave, these visitors are treated as virtual lepers, as persons who are to be shunned and excluded from society.  Although not allowed inside of the Cave, these “lepers” are allowed to pray outside, near a staircase entrance which is no longer in use and which has been walled-off from the interior of the Cave.

Prior to September 1, 2021, the definition of a vaccine was: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”  (https://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846).  The term “immunity,” in turn, was defined as “protection from an infectious disease,” (Id.), meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.

Since September 1, 2021, the CDC’s definition of a “vaccine” is a “preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

Why the change in the definition of a “vaccine”?  The reason must be that the COVID injections that are touted as “vaccines” do not provide immunity from the Coronavirus.  In fact, Dr. David E. Martin has explained that the COVID injections have been described as “gene therapy technology” and that notwithstanding that both the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots are labeled as “vaccines,” the actual patents for the Pfizer and Moderna injections describes them as “gene therapy,” not vaccines.

Dr. Joseph Mercola has written that the COVID “vaccines” “do not actually impart immunity or inhibit transmissibility of the [Coronavirus] disease.  In other words, [the COVID “vaccines”] are not designed to keep you from getting sick with SARS-CoV-2; they only are supposed to lessen your infection symptoms if or when you do get infected.

Pfizer, which has an exclusive contract with the Israeli government to provide COVID “vaccine” to that country’s government-controlled, mandatory healthcare system has admitted that it is using Israel as a “laboratory” to test its COVID “vaccine.”  Interestingly, there have been a significant number of cases where Israelis who have been injected with the COVID “vaccine” experienced heart problems, up to and including death, after having been injected with the COVID “vaccine.”

If, as medical professionals have stated, the COVID “vaccines” are designed to merely “stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases,” rather than prevent infection or transmission of the disease, any law that restricts a person’s freedom of movement or, as in the case of access to the Cave of Makhpela, restrict a person’s freedom of religion, cannot be tolerated.

Returning to the walled-off staircase where persons who are not allowed entry to the Cave of Makhpela because they do not possess proof that they have taken an experimental “vaccine,” we find that there is precedent, indeed centuries of precedent, for excluding individuals from the Cave.

For a period of approximately 700 years, a period which lasted until the end of the Six Day War in 1967, Muslims, who controlled Cave of Makhpela did not allow Jews to enter the Cave.  Instead, Jews were allowed access only to the seventh step of the staircase at the entrance which has now been walled-off.

Today, instead of Muslims denying Jews access to the Cave of Makhpela, the government of the Jewish State of Israel is denying Jews access to the Cave because these particular Jews have declined to take an experimental, and potentially harmful, drug, or to disclose their medical history relating to whether they have been injected with an experimental drug.

By: HaRav Menashe Sasson
Yerushalayim, Israel

Earlier this year, 5781 (2021), Gazan Arabs used a property-rights dispute in the Shimon HaTzaddik (Sheikh Jarrah) neighborhool of (east) Yerushalayim as a pretext to initiate a battle in the ongoing war that Gazan-Arabs have been waging, and which they continue to wage, against Israel.  For 15 days in during May, Gazan-Arabs fired rockets and launched incindary balloons from Gaza into the Israeli-controlled areas of Israel.  The Israeli military (IDF) responded with air strikes, but did not use ground troops to invade Gaza.

This pretextual property-rights dispute centers around homes in the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood of Yerushalayim which were Jewish-owned prior to the 1948 war of independence (1948 war).  Jordan captured the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood during the 1948 war and then gave the homes to Arabs.

During the Six-Day war in 1967, Israel recaptured the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood and restored ownership of the Shimon HaTzaddik homes to their rightful Jewish owners.  The Israeli government then exceeded its legitimate authority by making an agreement with the Arab residents of Shimon HaTzaddik  which would allow them to remain in their former homes if they paid rent to the Jewish owners of the homes.

The Arabs, however, have never paid any rent.  The Jewish owners responded by doing the only thing that they could under the circumstances: they instituted eviction proceedings in an attempt to regain possession of their homes.

In an apparant last-ditch effort to avoid what should be an easy decision for any court to make, the Arabs residents of Shimon HaTzaddik are seeking to introduce “newly discovered” Jordanian documents which, the Arabs claim, will provide additional support for their claim for possession of the homes.

The legal insufficiency that the Shimon HaTzaddik Arabs seem to have overlooked, or, more likely, which they would like the court to overlook, is that Israel recaptured and liberated the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood of Yerushalayim during the 1967 war, an act which legally extinguished any and all Jordanian sovereignty – which specifically includes, but which is not limited to, land deeds – over real property located in Shimon HaTzaddik.

Thus, any Jordanian documents which predate Israel’s 1967 military victory and liberation of the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood are irrelevant to the resolution of this property dispute.

​Despite clear and overwhelming evidence that the Jewish owners of the Shimon HaTzaddik properties are legally entitiled to orders of eviction, it appears that the Israel Supreme Court, rather than simply performing its judicial duty, is, likely for political rather than judicial reasons, attempting to force a settlement.