He Ru Follow us: Make a7 your Homepage
      Free Daily Israel Report

      Arutz 7 Most Read Stories

      Blogs


      Rav Ariel: High Court Ruling on Outposts Invalid

      Rabbi Yaakov Ariel slammed the High Court's recent ruling on demolitions in Yesha saying it runs contrary to Jewish law.
      By Gabe Kahn.
      First Publish: 10/19/2011, 10:30 AM

      Rabbi Yaakov Ariel
      Rabbi Yaakov Ariel
      Flash 90

      Chief Rabbi of Ramat Gan, Yaakov Ariel, slammed Israel's Supreme Court on Wednesday saying its recent ruling on the destruction of several Jewish outposts and established neighborhoods in Judea and Samaria is invalid.

      According to Rav Ariel, the court ruling in favor of the demolitions lacks foundation, is biased, and unethical and unfair.

      "The court justified its ruling citing irrelevant factors," Rav Ariel said. "And now we have this pungent sentence. This court ruling is not valid!"

      He added that, in the wake of such a horrendous ruling by the Supreme Court, that it was difficult to see how the situation could be rectified legally, but hoped it could be bypassed in the cabinet.

      Rav Ariel also said – according to Jewish law – that the rule in cases such as those involving outposts and neighborhoods currently facing demolition orders is not to carry out the order.

      Instead, the rabbi said, the only correct solution in Jewish law where there are claims of private ownership to land entire communities sit upon, is to compensate the owners for the land at market value.

      Rav Ariel repeatedly stressed demolition orders, as carried out by Israel’s government at present, were invalid within the context of Jewish tradition, culture, values, and law.

      The rabbi’s comments come as the community of Migron faces new orders for its destruction in coming days based on tenuous claims of private ownership by Arabs to the land it was built upon.

      Many other communities, such as Givat Asaf and the Ulpana neighborhood in Beit El, also face destruction. Many of the communities in question have since received government recognition – a fact the Supreme Court did not take into account.