Yisrael Medad is a revenant resident of Shiloh, in the Hills of Efrayim north of Jerusalem. He arrived in Israel with his wife, Batya, in 1970 and lived in the renewing Jewish Quarter, eventually moving to Shiloh in 1981. Currently the Menachem Begin Center's Information Resource Director, he has previously been director of Israel's Media Watch, a Knesset aide to three Members of Knesset and a lecturer in Zionist History. He assists the Yesha Council in it's contacts with the Foreign Media in a volunteer capacity, is active on behalf of Jewish rights on the Temple Mount and is involved in various Jewish and Zionist activist causes. He contributes a Hebrew-language media column to Besheva and publishes op-eds in the Jerusalem Post and other periodicals. He also blogs at MyRightWord in English and, in Hebrew, at The Right Word....
In reading this article here at the news site, I became inquisitive and researched the court's judgments.
In a March High Court of Justice decision rendered by the President of the Supreme Court, Dorit Beinisch, and signed on by Judeges Gronis and Fogelman, the conclusion permitted the security barrier's location near and/or on Walaja village land and here is a key phrase:
בבית המשפט העליון בשבתו כבית משפט גבוה לצדק
בנסיבות אלה, ובשים לב לקביעותינו בפסק הדין בעניין הכפר וולג'ה באשר לתוואי המעודכן, נחה דעתנו כי המפקד הצבאי נתן דעתו למכלול השיקולים הרלוונטיים לקביעת תוואי גדר הביטחון נשוא העתירה, תוך שהוא מאזן באופן סביר ומידתי בין שלושת אלה: שיקולי ביטחון; החובה לשמור על זכויותיה וצרכיה של האוכלוסייה הפלסטינית; וכן שיקולים שעניינם הגנה
על זכויותיה הנטענות של העותרת
"In these circumstances, and with our fixtures regarding the updated route as regards Walaja village, our mind is at ease that the Military Commander has paid proper attention to the varied relevant considerations in connection with fixing the route of the security barrier the subject of this appeal, in that he has balanced within a reasonable and measured manner between these three: the concerns of overall security; the obligation to protect the rights and needs of the Palestinian populace; as well as the protection of the [private and personal] rights claimed by the appellant...
I have a major semantic problem with that.
a) who are the "Palestinian people"?
Does the Court recognize a "people" or "persons" who refer to themselves as "Palestinians"?
The fundamental legal documents that promote the reconstitution of the Jewish national home never referred to the "Palestinians" but either to "non-Jews" or "Arabs" - and I would suggest the Court follow suit.
b) the Mandate, in specifying rights of persons not Jews, defined as the "rights and position of other sections of the population", includes
safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
Not even "Arabs" as a definition of the "inhabitants" is mentioned.
Moreover, Article 5, actually demands that
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.
The territory of Palestine included, at the very least, all of what is Israel today between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. And so the High Court for Justice should begin to act as a Zionist court, a Jewish court and one that does not renege on international legal principles as regards the Jewish national home.
The judges should simply write "Arabs". That would be quite democratic.