Victory for Reform Movement?:
Supreme Court orders gov't to reconsider Western Wall deal

Following petition by Reform movement, Women of the Wall, Supreme Court orders government to reconsider Western Wall deal.

Arutz Sheva Staff ,

Western Wall
Western Wall

The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the State to either implement a deal to partition the Western Wall and expand the area allotted to the Reform and Conservative movements, or to explain why it should not be forced to do so.

Earlier on Thursday the court held a hearing on the issue following a petition by the Reform movement and the 'Women of the Wall', a small group of activists who hold loud non-traditional prayer services at the holy site each month.

The deal, reached in January 2016, would have expanded the current mixed-gender prayer section at the Western Wall. The government decided to freeze the deal in June, following outcry from the coalition's religious partners over the parts of the agreement that stipulated a common entrance to all the prayer areas.

The court stated: "Following the discussion that took place today, the State's respondents are asked to inform the court ... if they are willing to reconsider the implementation of the Western Wall outline, which has been frozen by virtue of the government decision."

If the State decides to leave its decision intact, the Supreme Court requested that the State express its opinion regarding the Court's authority to decide the matter.

"If the answer to this question is negative, the State's respondents will within that time respond to the question of whether there is a possibility in law to compel the State to implement the Western Wall outline, taking into consideration the comments and arguments heard here today."

The Supreme Court addressed the fact that this is a complex issue, since there are petitions against the Western Wall outline itself. "Without setting any strict rules, we are aware that the implementation of the Western Wall layout will not satisfy all petitions. It is not inconceivable that the proceedings will result in an interim ruling and not in a final judgement addressing all arguments therein," the justices said in their decision.